Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Rhodesia

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now take steps to improve the effectiveness of international sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take at the United Nations concerning the strengthening of sanctions against the illegal Rhodesian régime following the publication of the Pearce Report.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Her Majesty's Government are already taking every step open to them to make existing sanctions effective by strict enforcement within Britain and by reporting suspected breaches to the Security Council, the body which has the primary responsibility for this matter. Sanctions evasion, however, is still widespread. There is no need for new machinery: what is required is a stricter enforcement by the international community of existing measures.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the Foreign Secretary made any direct representations to the United States and other sanctions breakers among our allies, and what steps is he taking to strengthen the blockade on the ports which are supplying raw materials to Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The United States Administration itself brought the breach of sanctions in respect of chrome to the notice of the United Nations and therefore there was no need for action by us. The breach of sanctions in relation to chrome was an act not of the United States Administration, which tried to stop it, but of Congress, which repeated its decision. The obligation laid on us by the United Nations in respect of the control of ports relates solely to the importation of oil through Beira.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend take note that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and other Opposition Members think it better that the United States should buy chrome from Communist sources rather than from Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a matter for the United States Government and not for me.

Mr. Richard: The Foreign Secretary will know that in his comments on the Pearce Report Mr. Smith said that sanctions had become much less effective since the proposed settlement with the United Kingdom last November. Does the Foreign Secretary share the view that sanctions have weakened within the last six months? If he takes that view, will he tell the House what he will do about it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This must be admitted because exports from Rhodesia have recovered to 97 per cent. of what they were before sanctions were imposed; so sanctions are having some effect. A lot of exports are going to countries which are members of the United Nations and which are supposed to be supporting sanctions. That is beyond dispute. We have made 170 recommendations that breaches of sanctions should be looked into and in only four cases have prosecutions been made.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the illegal régime in Rhodesia regarding the response of Her Majesty's Government to the report of the Pearce Commission.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with the Rhodesian Government subsequent to the publication of the Pearce Report.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 5th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 18.]

Mr. Whitehead: When the Foreign Secretary next communicates with the Smith régime will he say that there can be no further negotiations on a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia without the presence of the Africans in Rhodesia at the conference table, since by their reaction to the Pearce Commission they have clearly indicated that they have no confidence in the Smith régime to act as broker on their behalf?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall be debating this matter on Thursday in greater detail, so I shall give only a short answer now. The next step must come from Rhodesia and it would be very much better if it was multi-racial.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary aware that he is in great danger of emulating Lord North, who took seven years to recognise the rebellious American colonies? As both the British and Rhodesian Governments have now reached agreement, even though unfortunately this has been overthrown, would is not be better to maintain representatives in each other's capitals?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am concerned, as I am sure my hon. Friend must be, that there should be a quiet time for reflection by all races in Rhodesia. As to the next stage of any negotiations there may be, I do not think representation of the Rhodesian Government in London would contribute at this moment to that quiet reflection.

Mr. Bidwell: This is an extraordinarily long-winded affair. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he reported to the House on the Pearce Commission's activities he said that some African people were rather prone to accept a formula which would mean gradual unimpeded progress towards majority rule but that they did not trust the Smith régime to carry it through? Can he say whether at any time during his period as Foreign

Secretary, and, as far as he knows, during the period of the Labour Government, the possibility of placing a British garrison in Rhodesia, to ensure that such terms are carried out, was ever mooted?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. I do not think that policy would be favoured by either side of the House.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Commonwealth leaders on joint Commonwealth policy towards Rhodesia following publication of the Pearce Report.

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with African Commonwealth countries since the publication of the Pearce Report; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have had no discussions about a joint Commonwealth policy but Commonwealth Governments have been kept informed of all important developments over Rhodesia. We have received communications from some of them.

Mr. Judd: Would the Foreign Secretary agree that many Commonwealth countries are unlikely to be impressed by professions of good faith on our part towards the sanctions policy or by pacifist reports to the United Nations concerning sanctions breaking by others, and that what it really wants from us is a determined willingness on our part to make the strongest possible representations to Portugal and South Africa and others who, we know, are breaking sanctions? Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what representations he has made to Portugal and South Africa in this respect?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Representations to Portugal and South Africa would not be much good because they have opted out, deliberately, of the sanctions policy. There are many other countries, however, which are breaking sanctions. I do not think it is a good thing to name them—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"]—because sometimes it is a shipping company which has nothing to do with the country concerned, sometimes it is an industrial company over which its Government have no control and sometimes,


as in the case of American chrome, the Administration are trying to do one thing and their Parliament has rejected it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can point his finger to us. We have done everything required of us under the sanctions legislation which provides all the powers which the Security Council wants, and it is for the Secretary-General and the Security Council to enforce it.

Mr. Haselhurst: In view of the fact that Britain has in the Continent of Africa far greater political and commercial interests than the resumption of trade with Rhodesia, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will strive very hard to keep in harmony with the advice he may receive from our Commonwealth friends?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, certainly, we will keep in very close touch with our Commonwealth friends. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, for example, was in Nigeria at the time I announced our decision over the Pearce Report. I think those conversations will help greatly.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he announced the Pearce Commission he was kind enough to take note of an early day Motion of mine concerning the Land Tenure Act and the Epworth mission land settlement? Will he keep Commonwealth Governments and us here informed of any further embarkation upon the operation of the Land Tenure Act against the Methodist mission at Epworth?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. As I shall say on Thursday—without anticipating too much of my speech—one of my anxieties is that these problems which we were able to settle with Mr. Smith in November will be wide open if this settlement is not accepted.

Mr. Soref: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what communications he has had with the Rhodesian Prime Minister—

Mr. Faulds: There is no such animal—

Mr. Soref: —concerning the Wankie Colliery disaster in which 431 miners lost their lives, and to what extent this country is offering aid and assistance to the bereaved?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think the whole House will have been horrified at that disaster and will wish to express its sympathy with the relatives who have suffered so much. I asked Mr. Smith whether a relief fund was being set up in Rhodesia. He tells me it is, and the Government here have decided to contribute £25,000.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether countries are now applying and enforcing full sanctions against Rhodesia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The great majority of United Nations members have informed the Security Council that they are complying with the relevant Security Council resolutions. It is for the Security Council to determine how fully they are doing so.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Surely the short answer is only Britain and the United States, but selectively. Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have never supported sanctions are not likely to start now, remembering that the Prime Minister said in 1968 that the only purpose of sanctions was to bring about a negotiation?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I well remember the vote on the mandatory sanctions in which this party disagreed with the Government of the day. These sanctions were passed. They will operate unless we get a settlement from Rhodesia or unless at some future time we decide that in the operation of the sanctions we have to ask for a different system.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance about the steps he is taking to ensure that the aid which he announced in answer to an earlier supplementary question to the miners and their relatives affected by the Wankie disaster will be allocated fairly as between white and black vicitims?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that on the whole the hon. Gentleman will wish he had not asked that question.

Mr. Mather: Have you been down a mine in Rhodesia?

Mr. Hamilton: I have been down more mines than you.

Sir Alec Doulgas-Home: There were 400 Africans killed and 30 Europeans killed. They are all dead and all their families, black or white, are suffering. This £25,000 will go to the families who have suffered, whether black or white.

European Security and Co-operation (Conference)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, following the ratification of the treaties in Bonn, whether he will now make an initiative towards an early convening of the East-West security conference; and in particular if he will press for it to be held in 1972 rather than in 1973.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the last month towards the convening of a European security conference.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: At the meeting of the Ministerial Council of NATO in Bonn on 30th and 31st May, it was agreed that in the light of the progress that had been made over the ratification of the Federal German treaties with the Soviet Union and Poland, the inner-German agreements and the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin, it would be right to enter into multilateral talks to prepare for a conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
My colleagues and I also accepted the offer of the Finnish Government to provide facilities in Helsinki for these talks. I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report the text of the final communiqué issued in Bonn.

Mr. Allaun: Yes, but is that good enough? Now that the treaties have been ratified, what reason is there for further delay? Could not the preparatory conference to which the right hon. Gentleman referred be followed by the conference proper this autumn? Is he aware that in many countries we are regarded as dragging our feet and that it seems very foolish, particularly as our country could benefit enormously from mutual balanced force reductions, by devoting the resources to things we need at home and to saving our balance of payments?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are certainly not dragging our feet and never have been, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that certain practical things happen this autumn. One is the American elections. Although there might be multilateral discussions about procedures before the American elections, I do not believe that the political talks and preparation will take place before they are over; but I expect the conference will take place next spring.

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman's first answer gives some of us at any rate a certain amount of gratification, so far as it goes. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the international situation is now much less frigid as a result of the agreements reached between Mr. Nixon and the Soviet Government and that the time is therefore propitious for such a conference? Will he give an assurance that serious consideration will be given to allowing the East German Government to take part in such a conference because, however odious they are they are a fact?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The situation is more flexible and more propitious. We are perfectly prepared to take advantage of this. I am not so much concerned with the preparation for the European security conference as with the machinery which may be set up afterwards to identify certain ways in which Russia and the East may find more constructive co-existence than has been possible up to now. Therefore, I think the preparation stage will be comparatively easy and I should like to pursue it in the next few months in a practical way.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the preparatory stage being comparatively easy. Will he give an assurance that he will consult the EEC countries and the other three applicants to join so that a truly European view can be put forward at the conference, representing as it will do the most important aspect of European life?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. The advantage of the conference will be that for the first time countries of Eastern Europe will be on the platform with the countries of Western Europe—in other words, the Warsaw Pact and NATO together, diluted by the unaligned


countries like Austria and Finland. This could be the beginning of better things.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: There is a general understanding that this conference of all conferences must be very carefully prepared if it is not to fail and in failing create a new catastrophe. There is a second stage during which the machinery the Foreign Secretary mentioned, which should include the question of membership of the conference proper, will have to be considered. In view of the obvious détente which has come about since the Moscow and Berlin agreements, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will press with all due speed for the convening of the conference itself in 1973?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I believe there is no question about the conference being in 1973, and pretty early in 1973. I agree that it should be carefully prepared, but not so carefully prepared that we get stuck in the preparation. That is why I said that I attach more importance to the things that happen after the conference rather than before.
I apologise for not answering the question of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about East Germany. The next stage is for East Germany and West Germany to discuss their own affairs. There will then be the question of membership of the United Nations for both countries. It is a little early to go further on that now.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is not the tremendous advance in the past six months the fact that Russia has, not for the first time in her history, admitted both for herself and her satellites that she is a European Power?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think this is the hope for the future, that Russia is in reality a European Power. But the history of the past 20 years since the war shows that many of her policies have been directed against Western Europe, so we must keep up our guard while we negotiate. It is a very difficult exercise but one which we are ready to undertake.

Following is the Final Communiqué:—
1. The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Bonn on 30th and 31st May, 1972.

2. Ministers reaffirmed that the purpose of the Alliance is to preserve the freedom and security of all its members. Defence and the relaxation of tension are inseparably linked. The solidarity of the Alliance is indispensable in this repect. Allied Governments seek an improvement in their relations with the countries of Eastern Europe and aim at a just and durable peace which would overcome the division of Germany and foster security in Europe.
3. Ministers noted progress in relations between Western and Eastern countries, increasing contacts between the leaders of these countries, and the conclusion of important agreements and arrangements. They welcomed these developments flowing from major initiatives undertaken by their Governments, which had full and timely consultations on these subjects. Such consultations will continue.
4. Ministers welcomed the signing by the United States and the USSR of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the interim agreement on Certain Measures with respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. They believe these two agreements limiting the strategic arms of the United States and the USSR will contribute to strategic stability, significantly strengthen international confidence, and reduce the danger of nuclear war. Ministers also welcomed the commitment by the United States and the USSR actively to continue negotiations on limiting strategic arms. They expressed the hope that these two agreements will be the beginning of a new and promising era of negotiations in the arms control field.
5. Ministers noted with satisfaction that the treaty of 12th August, 1970, between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union and the treaty of 7th December, 1970, between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Polish People's Republic are to enter into force in the near future. They reaffirmed their opinion that these treaties are important, both as contributions towards the relaxation of tension in Europe and as elements of the modus vivendi which the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to establish with its Eastern neighbours. Ministers welcomed the declaration of 17th May, 1972, in which the Federal Republic of Germany confirmed its policy to this end and reaffirmed its loyalty to the Atlantic Alliance as the basis of its security and freedom. They noted that it remains the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany to work for circumstances of peace in Europe in which the German people, in free self-determination, can recover their unity; and that the existing treaties and agreements to which the Federal Republic of Germany is a party and the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and Germany as a whole remain unaffected.
6. Ministers also welcomed the progress made since their last meeting in the talks between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR. They regard the conclusion of the agreements and arrangements between the competent German authorities, which supplement the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin of


3rd September, 1971, as well as the signature of a Treaty on Questions of Traffic between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR, as important steps in the effort to improve the situation in Germany. They thus feel encouraged in the hope that, in further negotiations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR, agreement might be reached on more comprehensive arrangements which would take into account the special situation in Germany.
7. Ministers noted with satisfaction that the Governments of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union have arranged to sign the Final Protocol to the Quadripartite Agreement. The entry into force of the entire Berlin Agreement being thus assured, the Ministers hope that a new era can begin for Berlin, free of the tension that has marked its history for the past quarter century.
8. In the light of these favourable developments. Ministers agreed to enter into multilateral conversations concerned with preparations for a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. They accepted with gratitude the proposal of the Finnish Government to act as host for such talks in Helsinki at the level of Heads of Mission under the conditions set out in its aide-memoire of 24th November, 1970. Accordingly, they decided to work out with other interested Governments the necessary arrangements for beginning the multilateral preparatory talks.
9. Ministers stated that the aim of Allied Governments at the multilateral preparatory talks would be to ensure that their proposals were fully considered at a Conference and to establish that enough common ground existed among the participants to warrant reasonable expectations that a Conference would produce satisfactory results.
10. Prepared in this way, a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should constitute an important factor in the process of reducing tension. It should help to eliminate obstacles to closed relations and co-operation among the participants while maintaining the security of all. Allied Governments look forward to a serious examination of the real problems at issue and to a Conference which would yield practical results.
11. Ministers considered that, in the interest of security, the examination at a CSCE of appropriate measures, including certain military measures, aimed at strengthening confidence and increasingly stability would contribute to the process of reducing the dangers of military confrontation.
12. Ministers noted the Report of the Council in Permanent Session concerning a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Report examined the issues which might be included on the Agenda of a Conference as set forth in paragraph 13 of the Brussels Communiqué of 10th December,1971, as well as the procedural questions relating to the convening of a Conference. Ministers directed the Council in Permanent Session to develop further its substantive and procedural studies in preparation for a Conference.

13. Ministers representing countries which participate in NATO's Integrated Defence Programme recalled the offers to discuss mutual and balanced force reductions which they had made at Reykjavik in 1968, at Rome in 1970, and subsequently reaffirmed.
14. These Ministers continue to aim at negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions and related measures. They believe that these negotiations should be conducted on a multilateral basis and be preceded by suitable explorations. They regretted that the Soviet Government has failed to respond to the Allied offer of October, 1971, to enter into exploratory talks. They therefore now propose that multilateral explorations on mutual and balanced force reductions be undertaken as soon as practicable, either before or in parallel with multilateral preparatory talks on a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
15. These Ministers noted the studies conducted since their last meeting on political, military and technical aspects of mutual and balanced force reductions. They instructed the Permanent Representatives to continue this work in preparation for eventual negotiations.
16. These Ministers stated that the present military balance of forces in Europe does not allow a unilateral relaxation of the defence efforts of the Allies. Unilateral force reductions would detract from the Alliance's efforts to achieve greater stability and detente and would jeopardise the prospects for mutual and balanced force reductions.
17. Ministers took note of a Report by the Council in Permanent Session on the situation in the Mediterranean. They expressed their concern regarding the factors of in stability in the area which could endanger the security of the members of the Alliance They instructed the Council in Permanent Session to follow closely the evolution of the situation and to report to them at their next meeting.
18. The next Ministerial Session of the North Atlantic Council will be held in Brussels in December, 1972.
19. Ministers requested the Foreign Minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to transmit this Communiqué on their behalf through diplomatic channels to all other interested parties, including neutral and non-aligned Governments.

Japan (Hong Kong Trade)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now able to state the results of his discussions with the Japanese Government about the exceptions made by the latter to its scheme of generalised preferences in relation to Hong Kong.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I have seen the


Japanese Ambassador and handed over to the Japanese Government an aide-memoire expressing our disappointment at the treatment of Hong Kong in the Japanese Generalised Preference Scheme and asking the Japanese Government to reconsider the position. Our concern was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he met Japanese Ministers at the beginning of this month. The Japanese Government have undertaken to examine our request.

Mr. Blaker: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but is not the attitude of the Japanese Government towards Hong Kong rather puzzling, as Hong Kong buys more from Japan than any other country and as the Japanese benefit from the Hong Kong Government's policy of an open door for foreign investment and for public tendering? Can my hon. Friend explain why the Japanese Government appear to be discriminating against Hong Kong in favour of its close competitors?

Mr. Royle: We are concerned about the matter. Hong Kong very much wishes to avoid discrimination which might operate in favour of its competitors. Of the 96 items on the exceptions list, 37 are not exported from Hong Kong to Japan, eight are not made in Hong Kong at all and Hong Kong calculates that of the remaining 59 only 13 are of any real significance to it, representing more than half of Hong Kong's exports to Japan. Of the exceptions, there are certain products of which Hong Kong's competitors, which are not subject to any exceptions list, are the main exporters.

Passports

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the rules governing the use by a married woman of a joint husband and wife passport.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Under an international agreement, which was reviewed in 1963, a wife cannot travel on a family passport without her husband.

Mr. Cox: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that that ruling is both outdated and unfair. Many women nowadays are able to travel abroad, and especially if they have young children they like to take them on day trips to the Continent. When

they have valid passports, why is it that they are not allowed to use them but are forced into the inconvenience and considerable expense of getting additional passports? As the matter was last reviewed in 1963, will the hon. Gentleman look at it again with some urgency?

Mr. Royle: I understand the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint but we are cramped by international agreement. Although it is a long-standing practice, the family passport has distinct disadvantages in that families often take up residence abroad on a family passport and are in difficulties if they have to travel separately in an emergency. It is really for family holiday purposes and I would not recommend it for any other use.

Miss Fookes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reform of this matter was advocated in a Conservative Party pamphlet, accepted at the party conference by the then Shadow Cabinet and prepared by the present Solicitor-General? Could we have a rather more satisfactory answer?

Mr. Royle: I have noted the very powerful argument which my hon. Friend has put forward. In spite of what I have said before, in view of her comments and those of the hon. Member for Wands-worth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox), I am prepared to look into the matter again.

Latin America (Seminar)

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had, both in the United Kingdom and in the countries of Latin America, to the British Government's Seminar on Britain and Latin America.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): The response from British businessmen has been very encouraging. The seminar attracted much attention in Latin America and a number of Latin American Governments have said that they wish to study the record of its discussions. Action is being taken to follow up these responses. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has agreed to mount a seminar on Brazil in the autumn.

Mr. Luce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the key to the ultimate success of


this important conference will be the sustained building up of links with South America by the British Government and British industry? Will he continue to urge British industry to take successful follow-up action?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course it is very important to get effective follow-up action, and that is what we are seeking. I am encouraged by the number of people and Governments who have asked specifically for a full record of the conference, which we are providing, and there are specific points, apart from those contained in the set speeches, in questions and answers which will help us to understand one another and, we hope, draw us closer together.

Mr. Heffer: Was there any successful outcome of the discussions between the Foreign Office and the Chilean Foreign Minister last week? Is there likely to be an increase in trade with Chile and possibly additional credits to assist the Chilean Government, despite their political complexion, of which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not necessarily approve?

Mr. Godber: I do not think we would allow internal political views to affect our judgment in this. We take the view that it is right that we should have the friendliest relations with Chile. We had very useful discussions with the Chilean Foreign Minister. The question of debt and credits is very complicated. There have been discussions about multilateral problems with Chile at the Paris meetings in March and April. We are now engaged in bilateral negotiations with Chile and are seeking to find the best possible method of an expansion of trade which we want to see.

Vietnam

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers about the United States of America's blockade of North Vietnam, in the context of his policy of co-ordinating British foreign policies with those of the Six.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Discussions with Ministers from European Economic Com-

munity countries must remain confidential.

Mr. Deakins: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us at least whether any of the Six support the United States action in Vietnam, and if so—which one suspects is the case—is not this a poor look-out for the development of a joint foreign policy in the enlarged Community which, on the basis of fact, is likely to be as reactionary as that of the present British Government?

Mr. Royle: The attitude of other countries to events in other parts of the world is the responsibility of the Governments of those countries and not ours.

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has had with the United States Government following the mining of the Vietnamese waters in South-East Asia.

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the United States Government concerning events in Vietnam

Mr. Good hart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has had with the Government of the United States of America and South Vietnam about events in Vietnam.

Mr. Anthony Royle: We are in regular contact with the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam on the situation in Indo-China, though these exchanges are confidential.

Mr. Orme: During those exchanges did the Minister express, for instance, the deep concern in this country about the continuation of this war, and in particular the decision taken by the British Labour Party completely opposing the mining of Vietnamese waters? Many of us have recently seen on the television pictures of the children covered with napalm. Surely something should be done to end this war. In this regard, what response are the British Government making?

Mr. Royle: We have not made any protest to the American Government about the mining of North Vietnamese


ports, given the state of hostilities in the area. This response by the American Government is a measured response, in our view, to North Vietnam's invasion of the South. The Americans want a negotiated settlement, and President Nixon put forward fresh proposals for this when he announced his proposals to close the ports of North Vietnam. While the North Vietnamese refuse to negotiate, however, it is understandable that the Americans should take military action in support of their ally, to counter that taken by the other side.

Mr. Loveridge: Despite the concern which many people in this country continue to feel about the tragedies of the war in Vietnam, will my hon. Friend do all he can to reassure the Government and people of the United States that the bulk of people in this country appreciate their efforts to help a small nation to defend itself from aggression?

Mr. Russell Kerr: Nonsense.

Mr. Royle: I have indicated the Government's view. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 15th May we regard the proposals put forward by President Nixon as positive and constructive. We hope that the North Vietnamese will show their desire for peace by a suitable response. If these proposals were accepted, there could be a rapid withdrawal of United States troops from Vietnam.

Mr. Good hart: While thanking my hon. Friend for that robust reply may I ask him whether he can tell the House what we are doing to assist the refugees who have been turned out of their homes by the Communist offensive? Surely the £10,000 extra which we have so far offered to those trying to cope with this disaster is really inadequate. Cannot we get medical teams out there?

Mr. Royle: The £10,000 which we gave was well received by the South Vietnamese Government. That really was intended only to meet immediate and urgent needs. As such it was gratefully received. In addition, private United Kingdom charitable organisations are playing a considerable rôlein aid to refugees. The Save the Children Fund has so far given £40,000 and Oxfam £33,000 since the current offensive began.

Mr. Dalyell: if this is the posture of the British Government can they be exactly surprised that the Russians will have nothing to do with them as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference?

Mr. Royle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, although he knows me well, has misunderstood my posture and that of the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: It is only too clear.

Mr. Royle: The Government remain ready to help promote a peaceful settlement in Vietnam in any way that may be open to us But to be effective any initiative by this Government would have to be acceptable to all the parties involved in the conflict. Unfortunately the recent North Vietnamese invasion makes it clear that they still wish to try to impose their will on the South Vietnamese by force. That is the difficulty we face.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would my hon. Friend agree that the difference between the Co-Chairmen is that one supplies 75 per cent, of the offensive armaments of a country which is hell-bent on aggression against its neighbour whereas we use all our good offices for peace?

Mr. Royle: I do not disagree with that remark.

Mr. Richard: Is it not totally clear that any possibility of reconvening the Geneva Conference has long since gone? Is it not also quite clear that the United States Government is bent on a process of extraction from Vietnam and is it not rather squalid that the best warriors in Vietnam at the moment seem to be, not from the United States of America, but on the back benches opposite?

Mr. Royle: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his comments about the American troop withdrawals from Vietnam. The British Government's aim is to encourage some peace machinery to be set up. We do not mind what the peace machinery is and that is why we have been pursuing and trying to find out whether it is possible to set up the Geneva Conference or a Geneva-type conference. If that is not possible, we will help and we will pursue in consultation with other countries any other possible methods of bringing this dreadful war to an end.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates since June, 1970, on which an official request has been sent to the Russian Government to reconvene the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Since June, 1970, there have been five occasions on which we have asked the Russians to consider reconvening the Geneva Conference. I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In addition my right hon. Friend discussed the question with Mr. Gromyko in Berlin on 3rd June.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Foreign Office seize the opportunity to take advantage of the slight pause in the situation to take further initiatives beyond those which have already been taken? Is the Minister aware that people in this country feel that we are on a kind of Foreign Office bureaucratic treadmill which takes the form of one step forward and one step backward, just like dancing the quadrille? We want to see no let-up on any possible new initiative of any kind, together with the Russian Co-Chairman, to stop this tragedy.

Mr. Royle: I share very much the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question and we are certainly trying as hard as we can in all areas to try to bring the sides together. We are in a position to do this since, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, we are Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference and, as I have indicated in my reply, we have been taking up this matter on many occasions in the past few weeks. I was in Peking last week, as the House knows, and so far the Chinese have not been receptive to the idea of reconvening the Geneva Conference. We have made no proposals to the North Vietnamese with whom we have no diplomatic relations.

Following is the information:

Occasions on which Her Majesty's Government have asked the Soviet Government to consider reconvening the Geneva Conference.

1. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Mr. Gromyko on 28th October, 1970.
2. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Soviet Ambassador on 4th February, 1971.
3. The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Soviet Ambassador on 7th April, 1972.

4. The British Ambassador in Moscow to Mr. Gromyko on 20th April, 1972.
5. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Soviet Ambassador on 10th May, 1972.

Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards resolving the fisheries dispute with Iceland.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the continuing discussions with Iceland upon its territorial fishing limits; and when the Icelandic Foreign Minister is returning to London for renewed talks.

Mr. Anthony Royle: As I told the House in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 26th May, discussions were held with Icelandic Ministers on 24th-25th May concerning an interim arrangement for British fishing off Iceland after 1st September. These discussions are to continue on 19th-20th June in London. The fundamental issue of the legality of the Icelandic extension of fisheries jurisdiction has been referred to the International Court of Justice, but no pleadings have yet been filed.—[Vol. 837, c. 522–3.]

Mr. Reed: If the Icelandic Government are so confident that their claim is justifiable, why will they not wait until the international Law of the Sea conference next year and put forward their view there, since the conference has been formed for the purpose of allowing equitable distribution of sea resources between countries? Or do they know that their claim is bogus?

Mr. Royle: The conference, planned for 1973, will in our view be the natural forum for the discussion of questions of jurisdiction over the high seas, including fisheries. We are keeping our wider interests in that conference in mind in our attitude towards this dispute, but I cannot answer for the views of the Icelandic Government and it is not for me to do so.

Mr. Johnson: Following the talks last month, does the hon. Gentleman feel able to confirm that both sides will enter the


talks this coming month with a genuine desire for a genuine settlement to avoid a confrontation on 1st September? With this in mind, will the hon. Gentleman constantly bear in mind that all sections of our industry from top to bottom want him to say two things? The first is that we do not accept the domestic jurisdiction of Iceland up to a 50-mile limit. The second is that we must have our men and boats looked after in the event of anything happening after 1st September.

Mr. Royle: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made plain the views of those who are interested. Various propositions have been put forward for the continuance of fishing between 12 and 50 miles off Iceland from 1st September until the dispute is resolved. I cannot go into the details but they would involve some restrictions on the scale of British fishing in those waters without prejudice to the views of either side on the legality of the Icelandic extension to 50 miles. As I said on 6th March, I cannot say that we should in no circumstances resort to naval protection for our fishing vessels.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case submitted to the International Court of Justice regarding the fishing limits dispute with Iceland.

Mr. Anthony Royle: On14th April we filed with the International Court an application asking the court to declare that Iceland's claim to extend fisheries jurisdiction to 50 miles was without foundation in international law and was therefore invalid; and that matters of this kind should be regulated by international, not unilateral, arrangements.
The Icelandic Government have since denied that the court has any jurisdiction in this matter and have indicated that they will not take part in the proceedings. But this does not prevent the court from hearing the case and giving a decision on the merits.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend say when he expects the court to hear this case and, in the event of British fishing being interrupted on the high seas, whether it will be possible to obtain an injunction from that court?

Mr. Royle: I cannot yet give my hon. Friend the exact date. We shall in due

course file a memorial which will set out our case in detail. The time limit for filing has yet to be determined by the court. After filing the memorial and any subsequent written pleading the court may require, there will no doubt be oral argument at The Hague.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my hon. Friend say what will happen in September if the court decides that the Icelandic action is illegal and Iceland refuses to accept that? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that our fishermen will be adequately protected in what will obviously be a very difficult and dangerous situation?

Mr. Royle: As to the assurance asked for in the latter part of that supplementary question, I indicated the Government's view on this in answer to an earlier Question. As for default, the statute of the court provides procedure whereby the court may hear the case in default of appearance of one of the parties to the dispute. We propose to invoke the procedure.

Mr. James Johnson: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that of the countries of the North East Atlantic fisheries conference, any one of the 14 others besides ourselves would support the case we would take to the court?

Mr. Royle: I believe that is correct.

Mr. Maclennan: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the light of the statement made by the Iceland Government about possible action in the autumn, Her Majesty's Government would consider going to the court to seek interim measures of protection?

Mr. Royle: I think we must see how things proceed. We have had the negotiations in London recently and more negotiations will take place later this month. I think it would be wiser for hon. Members, on both sides, to wait to see how matters proceed over the next few weeks.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters now remain to be negotiated prior to possible entry into the Common Market on 1st January, 1973.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The pre-entry negotiations with the European Communities were completed in January and the agreements reached recorded in the instruments relating to United Kingdom accession to the Communities.

Mr. Marten: Of course I was aware of that, but surely there is a great number of outstanding matters. Would my right hon. Friend agree that they include such things as the reform of the common agricultural policy, political institutions, regional policy, transport and lorries—all matters which should be settled on behalf of the British people before we agree to go in? Will my right hon. Friend therefore kindly refer to his Cabinet colleagues and suggest that the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill should not take place until Britain is satisfied about these matters?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That would be a difficult request for me to say "Yes" to. The matters my hon. Friend has raised are matters we can discuss with great advantage when we are inside the Community—regional policy, for example. We are discussing in Brussels matters of immense importance like industrial policy, regional policy and progress towards monetary union not only in the Commission but with the Ministers, who meet from time to time. These subjects are definitely covered at the present time.

Mr. David Steel: One of the remaining outstanding matters for negotiation in this House is the nature and composition of British representation in the European Parliament. How soon does the right hon. Gentleman think we will be able to have satisfaction about this?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Personally, I think we would like to have experience of the European Parliament before we make up our minds how best it should be dealt with.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) mentioned about a dozen items still outstanding, the Foreign Secretary mentioned about another 15 and there are hundreds of others. How can the Government get the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people if even the Government do not know what we are negotiating or agreed upon? How can the Government get

the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people on this issue?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In response to the hon. Member, I can think of a number of very important questions we should be discussing between now and the summit meeting in October. Apart from the ones I have mentioned, such as progress towards a monetary union for Europe, there is industrial policy—because it has all been agriculture up to now. Again, I can think of examining the attitude of the Community towards the Third World. I think these can be defined very well at the summit meeting in October and signposts given for the direction in which the Community should proceed.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of Ministers of the European Economic Community and applicant countries at Luxembourg on 26th May, in particular on the consideration that was given to methods of decision-making within the Community.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give the view of the British Government on the matters raised at his meeting with the Foreign Ministers of the Ten in Luxembourg on 27th May.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The content of these discussions must remain confidential.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend agree that whatever may be in controversy about the Community there is virtually unanimous agreement in thinking circles, both in the countries of the Community and the applicant countries, as to the inadequacy of the democratic aspect of decision-making? In view of current interest in the question as evidenced by the Vedal report and others, can he say what Her Majesty's Government propose to contribute to the thinking on this question both in regard to the national Parliament and the European Parliament?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I indicated earlier in relation to the working of the European Parliament, I believe that most of the House would agree that


if we have a bureaucratic institution there must be a political institution to control it. As to the degree to which the powers of the European Parliament are increased or how best this Parliament can contribute to the European Parliament, as I have said I think it would be prudent to have experience of the working of that Parliament before making up our minds how we can best fulfil our functions.

Mr. Lewis: In his original reply the Foreign Secretary mentioned confidentiality. Are not the Government treating the House with even more contempt than they usually show on Common Market questions? There are inspired leaks before, during and after the discussions, so that we can read in the Press what happens at the discussions, but we are not told the facts by the Government. Does not the Foreign Secretary think that he should treat the House with respect and tell us what is happening rather than leave us to get information from Press reports?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Government pronouncements deal with facts that can be confirmed; leaks deal with rumours that cannot.

Mr. Shore: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Ministers of the Six in the Council of Ministers have agreed together that their deliberations will not be confidential in respect of what they tell their own national Parliaments? Will he therefore reconsider his reply? On the substance of the matter, will he kindly take the opportunity at an early date, if he has not already done so, to raise with the members of the Six, or the Ten as it now is, the question of the pollution of the atmosphere caused by French nuclear testing in the South Pacific?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman has travelled an unusually long way from the original Question. I do not think the House has any reason to complain about ministerial statements of facts. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster comes back regularly and reports to the House.

USSR (Jewish Citizens)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-

wealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Russian authorities concerning the harassment, arrest and conscription of Russian Jewish scientists before and during President Nixon's visit to Moscow.

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make renewed representations to the Russian authorities concerning the latest restrictions imposed on those Jewish citizens who have applied for visas to go to Israel.

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make further representations to the Russian authorities about the recent treatment of certain citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Godber: While appreciating the concern which prompted these Questions Her Majesty's Government have no standing to make formal representations to the Soviet Government about the treatment of Soviet citizens. The views of Her Majesty's Government on this general question are, however, already known to the Soviet Government.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep sense of outrage felt among scientists in this country at the harassment and persecution of their colleagues in the Soviet Union? Will he consider some way of giving public voice to this concern through our representatives at the United Nations or UNESCO or one of the other specialised agencies?

Mr. Godber: We do recognise this problem and we have on many occasions made clear our views about this kind of treatment. It has been done by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and by the Permanent Under-Secretary as well as myself. Our representatives at the last session of the Human Rights Commission appealed to all Governments to ensure that their policies with regard to the movement of subjects were in accord with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our position on this is absolutely clear and we are very much against action of this kind. However, this is a matter within the responsibility of the Soviet Government. We


can make our views Known but beyond that we cannot go.

Mr. Cormack: I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Would he agree that the way in which the Soviet authorities acted in banning the prayer book, signed by Members of this House, which was recently sent for the little Jewish boy showed them in an extremely bad light? Has he any further information about the whereabouts of that book, because we understood that the Russians were to return it but as yet it has not turned up?

Mr. Godber: I would not dissent from the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question but there are Questions on this subject down for answer later and I must reserve my answer until then.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by many in my constituency, particularly Councillor Leslie Donn of Whitefield, about the harassment of the Korenfeld family who live in district E37 of Moscow? Can he make representations to the Soviet Government as there has been interruption of postal and telephone communications between my constituents and that family?

Mr. Godber: If my hon. Friend would like to send me the details of any case I am always willing to look at them, but I must remind him of the point I made earlier that we cannot intervene in the cases of individual citizens of the Soviet Union. I will be glad to look at any particular case to see whether there is any way in which we can help. I have to remind the House that we have stated our position absolutely clearly and have done so again recently in the Commission on Human Rights.

China (Visit)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to China by the Undersecretary of State.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his preparations for the Under-Secretary's visit to China.

Mr. Anthony Royle: As the House will be aware, my visit was the first to the People's Republic of China by a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I was received with great courtesy and hospitality. My talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister, the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Vice Minister of Foreign Trade lasted for more than 14 hours. They were conducted in a remarkably frank and friendly way and covered a wide range of subjects. These concerned both our bilateral relations and problems of mutual interest in the field of international affairs. The details must remain confidential. We reached agreement that a framework now exists for the gradual but steady development of exchanges in industrial, scientific and technological experience, trade and sport.
Sino-British relations are now better than they have been at any time for very many years. I look forward to their continued improvement.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his successful visit and ask him what proposals there are for further visits, in particular for visits to this country by Chinese Ministers, which would be very welcome?

Mr. Royle: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has accepted an invitation from the Chinese Foreign Minister, Chi Peng-Fei, to visit China in the autumn. The Foreign Minister expressed to me his pleasure at the prospect of receiving my right hon. Friend in Peking. The Foreign Minister, the Minister of Foreign Trade and Mr. Ch'iao Kuan-Hua, the senior Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, have all accepted invitations to visit this country. The dates remain to be determined. I have also discussed the possibility of a visit to China by a parliamentary delegation.

Mr. Dalyell: When discussing Vietnam in the Great Hall of the People did the Under-Secretary give his Chinese hosts the same spiel that he has given us? If so, what did they say? If not, what view did he express?

Mr. Royle: I did not discuss Vietnam in the Great Hall of the People. The hon. Gentleman may not have been aware that the invitation from the Chinese Government for me to visit


China came after the statement that I made in the House of British Government policy over the recent events in Vietnam and after the statements made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the subject of Vietnam.

Mr. Cormack: In view of the obvious success of this visit, is there any prospect of an easing of the visa situation with regard to the close relatives of certain British subjects who are not allowed out of China?

Mr. Royle: I raised with the Chinese the question of three British subjects who are still detained in China and the two British residents in Shanghai who require exit visas. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that I was informed before I left Shanghai that exit visas have now been allowed to Ian Chang and the adopted daughter of Mr. Edmonds.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I say how glad we are that the Under-Secretary of State has been able to complete this important mission? Will his visit be followed by a visit of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at a fairly early date? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the improvement of communications with China. Will he tell us something about communications between China and Hong Kong, particularly telephonic communications, and between Hong Kong and the West?

Mr. Royle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I greatly appreciate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be visiting China at the end of October or early in November and the Chinese Government are very much looking forward to his visit. The subject of communications was discussed amongst others connected with Hong Kong. We made it plain that we wished to conclude an air services agreement with China, and we hope that negotiations will begin soon. Agreement on detailed arrangements will have to await the conclusion of an air services agreement. As a result of our discussions, I have the greatest confidence in the future of Hong Kong.

Mr. Blaker: Will my hon. Friend say something about the prospects for the

sale to China of British aircraft, particularly Concorde?

Mr. Royle: The civil aviation authority of China already operates Viscounts and Tridents and more Tridents are on order. I described the range of aircraft that the British aircraft industry is now in a position to offer. This gives China an extensive choice from which to replace and add to her fleet. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Chinese expressed considerable and continued interest in Concorde.

Mr. Maclennan: Is there a prospect of an extension of consular relations to advance the objectives which were mutually agreed?

Mr. Royle: No; we have now closed the consulate in Shanghai and there is no question of reopening the consular establishment in that city. We think that the present balance of arrangements whereby we have an Ambassador in Peking and the Chinese Ambassador will be arriving early in July to take up his post in London is about right.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Further to my hon. Friend's answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), he gave welcome news with regard to exit visas for people in Shanghai but did he have an equally encouraging response in the case of the people who are detained?

Mr. Royle: I mentioned them to the Chinese and they took note. I had no further news by the time I left China.

Uganda (Mr. Anil Clerk)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current whereabouts of Mr. Anil Clerk in the light of his representations to the Uganda Government.

Mr. Godber: The Ugandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that investigations are continuing and that the High Commission will be informed as soon as any information is received. When he saw President Amin on 27th May our High Commissioner expressed deep concern. He was assured by the President that everything possible was being done.

Dr. Gilbert: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Will he confirm that Mr. Clerk is a British passport-holder, and can he tell us the whereabouts of his immediate family? Will he accept and convey to the Ugandan Government the fact that Mr. Clerk is held in high regard in this country?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I understand that he is a British passport-holder, and so far as one can tell his family are in no danger. Investigations are still continuing with regard to Mr. Clerk's abduction, which is much to be deplored.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. MEACHER: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the results of the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Mr. SPEARING: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached by the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Mr. MARTEN: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer these questions.
The Third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development met in Santiago, Chile, from 13th April to 21st May, 1972. It reached agreement on a number of guidelines that will be important in future work in other international organisations as well as in UNCTAD.
In my opening statement for the United Kingdom I made an assessment of what could be realistically expected from the conference. Our delegation put all its efforts into promoting agreement where this was possible. I believe that this constructive and realistic rôle was the most valuable one possible in the circumstances of this conference. In the event

the assessment which I presented was proved to be largely accurate.
The most important expectations for the conference were on monetary matters. Agreement was reached that the International Monetary Fund be invited to ensure the effective participation of the developing countries in international monetary reform by the establishment of a Special Committee of Governors. The Fund, as part of its consideration of monetary reform, is also to pursue its consideration of the possibility of a link between special drawing rights and development aid.
In the field of trade it was agreed that all developing countries should be enabled to participate fully and effectively in the multilateral trade negotiations expected to start in GATT next year, and that the UNCTAD and the GATT should co-ordinate their activities in assisting the developing countries to prepare for these negotiations.
In many instances, notably over the development of the generalised preferences scheme and over special measures for the benefit of the least developed among the developing countries, the conference set guidelines for the future work of its permanent organisation. We shall continue there the active and constructive rôle which we played in the conference.
Details of these and all the matters dealt with by the conference will be published in a White Paper as soon as is practicable this summer

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister say a little more about the special new fund which we understand will be set up in respect of the least developed countries. Will those funds be part of the existing aid organisation or extra aid? Secondly, on the question of the resolution on insurance which suggested that the least developed countries should carry a greater share of their own risks, could he say whether the United Kingdom delegation abstained on this resolution, how many other nations abstained and the reasons for our abstention, if any? Was one of the reasons that our delegation was afraid of what the City might have to say?

Mr. Noble: On the hon. Gentleman's second question which, if I heard him aright, was on insurance, I can tell him that we were the only country to abstain on an otherwise unanimously agreed resolution. The particularly objectionable


features of the resolution were paragraphs in it which encouraged developing countries, first, to reserve insurance business to their national insurers; secondly, to require insurance funds to be invested locally; and, thirdly, to require the developed countries to encourage those investing in developing countries to use local insurers. The House will appreciate that Britain is more immediately concerned with international insurance than is any other country. We also have to bear in mind in insurance matters the interests of the consumers as well as our own national interests. In all the cases where the type of policy which was advocated by certain countries in UNCTAD has been followed through consumers have come off worst.
With regard to the least developed countries, Britain already supplies 13 per cent. of our bilateral aid to the group of 25 least developed countries, which is a higher proportion than that recommended in the UNCTAD secretariat's action programme. We do this on very soft terms. I cannot at the moment give the hon. Gentleman an answer on the detail of whether or not this aid will be extra.

Mr. Marten: We look forward to studying the White Paper, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that trade is as important as, if not more important than, aid? In that context is he not surprised that trade with the developing countries from the Common Market—I do not want to harp on this unduly—declined in the last 10 years from 22 per cent. to 15·9 per cent.? Is that not a very depressing thought if we are to join the Market, and do we have to harmonise downwards?

Mr. Noble: I assure my hon. Friend, if he does not already know it, that we have an extremely good record of trade with the developing countries. I am convinced that we shall be able to maintain that record in the future.

Mrs. Hart: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman precisely when the White Paper will be published? Furthermore, will the Government provide time for us to debate this subject, bearing in mind that the Opposition provided time to debate the preliminary matters on the last occasion?
I wish to record our deep regret and embarrassment that the British attitude to the major proposals made in Santiago by the developing countries was either entirely negative or positively obstructive? Is it the case that we actively opposed, as distinct from not accepting it, a proposal for an official aid target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP?
May I also deplore the fact that we abstained on the resolution on insurance, on which the hon. Gentleman's answer today was abysmal. Could he say what is our precise position in respect of the resolution on debt relief, and will he say what our attitude will be to the IMF discussions on special drawing rights?

Mr. Noble: I will try to cover all the right hon. Lady's questions. I cannot give the exact date of the publication of the White Paper. I have said that it will be early in the summer, and I am afraid that is the best I can say at the moment.
The question of time for debate should be discussed through the usual channels.
On the point about 0·7 per cent. official aid targets, we have never made any bones about the fact that we have not accepted this or any other target for official aid. We believe it is the performance that counts, and the British record compares well with that of most other donors. In 1971 we provided net disbursements of official aid totalling 0·41 per cent. of GNP compared with a preliminary average of all developed countries in the Development Assistance Committee of 0·34 per cent.
On the question of debt, we voted with the other developed countries against a resolution passed by a majority vote on increasing the burden of debt servicing, since it called for new institutional arrangements and far-reaching measures to be applied irrespective of the circumstances of individual countries. We shall work with our partners in the enlarged Community in seeking ways of solving debt problems which impede development without destroying the basis of confidence on which the flow of international trade and credit is based.
The right hon. Lady expresses disappointment at my attitude in respect of insurance. I can only say that my duties are to look after both the interests of


this country and the interests of consumers in the developing countries.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Can my right hon. Friend make it clear, if not now at least in the White Paper, what are the major obstacles to an international agreement to establish minimum commodity prices on the lines of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? Surely that is one of the best ways in which we can help the under-developed countries.

Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend is quite right. Britain has a very good record in this connection. We belong to all the five commodity arrangements which have been reached so far. We are very keen that this should be developed, and we shall take an active part in any further work that UNCTAD can produce on commodity problems. I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the general demand that this important White Paper should be debated on the Floor of the House at the earliest convenient opportunity. Will it go further into the reasons for failing to agree with a target and explain the Government's view of hostility towards a target for aid? Can the right hon. Gentleman say also whether it will deal with the Government's record both at home and in an international context on the fixing of higher stabilised primary commodity prices?

Mr. Noble: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the general desire for a debate on this matter. However, I cannot go further than I did in answer to the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). As for the target, our position has been explained very fully on a great many occasions. The White Paper will give details of many of the points that we have put forward in arguing for agreements and explaining the reason why we could not support certain actions.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity in the White Paper to spell out directly the way in which the British Government intend to take initiatives leading to a considerable expansion in our aid to the developing countries? Is not this an area in which Britain should be leading? Is my

right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that the UNCTAD conference was less happy than it should have been?

Mr. Noble: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. The conference was much less happy than it should have been. The reason is clear. It set out with a great deal of publicity from the developing countries about a whole lot of targets which, in the view of the majority of people in the developed countries and many in the developing countries, were totally unrealistic. If a conference sets out with aims of that sort, inevitably it finishes in an atmosphere of disappointment or frustration. However, the British record in most of these matters is extremely good, and it should not be run down by right hon. and hon. Members opposite simply because they expected more.

Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the light of the discussions at Santiago and precisely because of our excellent record on trade with the third world there is a great deal of room for concern about what is to happen to our trading pattern with the third world once we enter the EEC?

Mr. Noble: There is a great deal of concern but I do not link it with the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. There are many problems that we have to look at seriously in this connection over the next five or 10 years. In fact, I took the opportunity only a few days ago to discuss them with a number of trade union leaders. There are many complicated problems that we have to solve However, I do not see that there are specific difficulties as a result of our joining the Common Market.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, ELTHAM

Mr. Hamling: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rail disaster at Eltham last night.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I very much regret to inform the House that at 9.36 p.m. last night a 10-coach excursion train from Margate to Kentish Town was derailed on the London side of Eltham, Well Hall Station The driver of the diesel locomotive hauling the train was killed; the


second man was seriously injured. Three passengers were killed, and 128 were injured and taken to hospital where 39, many of them seriously injured, were detained.
The House will wish to know that I have received a message of sympathy from the Queen, which at Her Majesty's request I have passed on to the Chairman of the Railways Board. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also sent a message to the Chairman. I know that the House will join with me in expressing most deep sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed and with the injured. The police, fire and ambulance services were all on the scene within five minutes of the derailment. I would like to acknowledge the magnificent way in which they and the voluntary services carried out the work of rescue.
I am not able at this stage to inform the House of the cause of this tragic accident. My Chief Inspecting Officer went to the scene early this morning and will be holding a public inquiry as soon as possible.

Mr. Hamling: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of his reply. Is he aware that we on this side of the House join him and the Government in expressing deep sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic crash? Is he aware, further, that we join him in congratulating the police, the fire brigades and the voluntary services for their very prompt help? What is more, Army nurses and doctors were also on the scene very promptly, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman joins us in offering them our thanks. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that there is one very sad aspect of this accident, which is the ghoulish attitude of a lot of people who thronged the scene and made it rather difficult for the rescue services? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join us in deploring their action.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Certainly I intended my thanks to cover all those involved in this very difficult work of rescue. If there were those who took the opportunity to view their terrible occurrence merely as spectators, I can

only say that I have received no complaints from the Railways Board. But one can only deplore the fact that people should allow idle curiosity to permit them to get in the way of operations vital to the saving of life.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy to all those who have suffered in this tragic accident? We congratulate those who worked so successfully to deal with the consequences of it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the inquiry would be in public. I apologise to him if he went on to say so, but will there also be a public report?

Mr. Peyton: I did not say so. The answer is that the inquiry will be in public and will be reported.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the last published annual report of the Chief Inspecting Officer there was an indication or the first improvement for several years in the number of train derailments? Has my right hon. Friend had any indication from the Railways Board about whether this splendid improvement in the general situation is continuing?

Mr. Peyton: I have received no specific indication. At this juncture one can only deeply regret an occurrence such as this which forms a blot on an otherwise very fine record.

Mr. Stallard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the athletic and social club which organised this outing is in my constituency and that many of the victims are constituents of mine? May I associate myself with the tributes that the right hon. Gentleman has paid and with the expressions of sympathy to the victims and their relatives?
I join in paying tribute to the people in the immediate neighbourhood who gave help after the accident. According to some of my constituents to whom I have spoken, they acted in an excellent manner and provided help and assistance, and I think that we ought to record our thanks to them.
I welcome the statement that there is to be a public inquiry. I do not intend to go into that any more until the findings are known, when perhaps we may have some further exchanges.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Motion relating to the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972, No. 671) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed, until half-past Two o'clock, and Mr. Speaker shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than that hour; and that the Motion relating to House of Commons (Services) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I rise to oppose the Motion. It appears, on the fact of it, to be a simple, innocent, formal, procedural Motion, but in my opinion it conceals a little bit of sharp practice, and, indeed, trickery on the part of the Government.
It was not known until hon. Members received their Order Papers that this Motion was being set down for discussion today. What it boils down to is that until 7 o'clock there is to be a debate on a Motion or Motions submitted by Private Members. At 7 o'clock the House will proceed, on the Adjournment Motion, to debate Northern Ireland affairs, until 10 o'clock. After that the House will discuss three orders relating to Northern Ireland.
Under the Standing Orders, each of these three orders can be debated for 1½ hours. Therefore, a total of 4½ hours must be added to 10 o'clock to decide when the debates on those orders will end, which will take us to "until half-past Two o'clock" as mentioned in the Motion.
At 2.30 a.m. the Motion relating to the House of Commons Services will be proceeded with. That Motion has been set down for debate at that time in the hope that no hon. Members will be present and the Government will be able to get through on the nod their proposal for a five-tier underground car park in New Palace Yard.
I shall not enter into the merits of the proposed car park—I was speaking on that subject when the House rose at 4 o'clock on Friday afternoon—but as I have another engagement at 2.30 a.m. tomorrow it is unlikely that I shall be here then. I want, therefore, to register the strongest possible protest against the way in which the Government

are trying to dodge their responsibilities and get this important and serious proposal through the House virtually on the nod.

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed further with this debate, and everything so far has been in order, I think I should remind right hon. and hon. Members that this is Private Members' time. This is one of the most cherished periods in our parliamentary week, and, therefore, I hope that this matter can be disposed of speedily.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): In view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply briefly.
The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) is labouring under a basic misapprehension, and because of that he is, I am sure quite unintentionally, misleading the House on this issue.
First, this is not a Government proposal. This is a House of Commons matter, not a Government matter. The House's own Services Committee presented a report to Parliament more than a year ago saying that, in principle, there should be this underground car park, and the House approved the recommendation of its own Committee to that effect. During the current Session the Services Committee has been charged with working out the details and making recommendations to the House about how the House's own decision should be put into effect in a practical way.
That is the position. This is not in any way a Government measure. This is a matter for the House. It was recommended by the House's Committee for the convenience of hon. Members. The urgency of the matter is that, having gone into the issue extremely carefully, the Services Committee, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is an all—party Committee, is a servant of the House, and is in no way associated with the Government or Government policy, considers that if this work is to be done in line with the wishes of the House it is very important that it should be begun soon so that, if possible, the worst part of the work—the inconvenience, noise, dirt, and so on—occurs during the recess. That is the reason for the hurry. It has nothing to do with the interests of the Government.

Mr. Michael Foot: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has raised a valid point. Although the Motion is brought forward on behalf of the House of Commons Services Committee, the choice of the time at which it is to be debated rests with the Government. I think that that is correct. The time proposed is not a satisfactory time to debate the Motion, and I think that it would be better for the Government to find some other time for it. We may be in difficulties over the timetable of the House, but it is not the case that the House is sitting until 2.30 a.m. every day.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Motion and bring it forward again at a more convenient time for the House. The time chosen by the Government is not convenient. As far as I know, my right hon. and hon. Friends have never been consulted on the matter. I think that my hon. Friend has raised an important issue, and I hope that it will be considered favourably by the Government.

Mr. R. Carr: I shall, of course, discuss the matter through the usual channels. I assure the House that the Government have no interest in forcing the Motion through the House. The interest here is that of every hon. Member, and the decision which they took last year should be started at a time that will produce the minimum of inconvenience to hon. Members and the work of the House.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I wish to raise briefly one point on the Motion, and that is the way in which the three Northern Ireland orders are being dealt with. Northern Irish Members, and particularly the seven Ulster Unionists who attend regularly, welcome the opportunity today to debate Northern Ireland, particularly in view of the events of the weekend, and also the fact that the debate is to continue until 2.30 a.m. Nevertheless, because of the burden of work involved—apparently the only way in which legislation on two important and one minor matter can be dealt with is following a debate on Northern Ireland—we feel that we cannot do justice to our constituents and deal properly and thoroughly with these matters at such a late hour.
My colleagues and I invite the Leader of the House to see whether it is possible to arrange for important legislation—particularly legislation coming before the House which has not been dealt with by Stormont—to be dealt with more thoroughly by the House and not, as on this occasion, by having matters lumped together in this way.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I want to add briefly to what you said, Mr. Speaker.
It is wrong of the Government to put this Motion first, on the Order Paper, because they know that if someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), who has a point, wishes to express his view he cannot do so without taking time away from Private Members.
I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). There is no reason why the Motion relating to the House of Commons Services should not be debated at an earlier hour. There are a number of points which hon. Members wish to make on this issue, and to bring the matter on for debate at 2.30 a.m. is not the right way to treat the House of Commons.
The Leader of the House says that this is a House of Commons matter and not a Government matter. What a way to treat the House of Commons! The right hon. Gentleman has arranged this Motion, I shall not say deliberately and purposely, but perhaps by accident and without fault, to come on for debate at 2.30 a.m.
I am concerned also that the Irish orders cannot be debated until after 10 o'clock. These, too, are important matters. The Minister can resolve the difficulty by going a little further than he has done and saying that he will discuss the matter through the usual channels and will not push or press the issue at 2.30 a.m. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to put the Motion down for debate at a more reasonable hour so that those who wish to take part in the debate are able to do so we can probably progress without delay.

Mr. R. Carr: With the permission of the House, perhaps I might say that the usual channels, as usual, have worked


very quickly and effectively. Of course, if it is convenient to the House to take this tomorrow evening, which will mean at a considerably earlier hour, that is perfectly agreeable.
As to the Irish business, I have already made it clear that we realise that Irish legislation which has not substantially been through the Stormont procedures will have to be dealt with in ways which we have not yet settled. I thought that in my announcement of business last week and in this Motion today I have shown, within the constraints, which are severe, that we are finding a substantially continuous period of debate on Northern Irish affairs. However, I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) about future legislation and will do the best I can about it.

Mr. Speaker: On the Irish point, as a matter of order perhaps I might point out that there is to be a debate on Northern Ireland affairs on the Adjournment, which will therefore be very wide. As to the orders, the first deals with exported animals, the second with compulsory insurance and employers' liability, and the third with the Appropriation Bill. The House may well decide to get rid of the first two rather more quickly than the one and a half hours allowed for each, in which case this Motion will enable the debate on the Appropriation Bill to go on until 2.30 instead of being limited to the one and a half hours.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972, No. 671) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed, until half-past Two o'clock, and Mr. Speaker shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than that hour; and that the Motion relating to House of Commons (Services) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.

SMALL BUSINESSES

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the positive steps taken by Her Majesty's Government to remove many of the difficulties which have faced small businesses and of the recognition given to their important contribution to Great Britain's economy; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government, in the national interest, to continue to stimulate and encourage the prosperity and growth of this energetic and enterprising section of the community.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for what you said just now about the importance of Private Members' business. I regard this Motion as of considerable importance, but I would also like to think that the second Motion, on animal welfare, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell), might also get a hearing, because that would have my support.
I make no apology for raising the subject of small firms. All my life I have been with small companies and small industries. For 10 years I was managing director of a small firm of electrical engineers in Lancashire, I then joined a small firm of management consultants, and I am now chairman of a national company concerned entirely with the problems of small firms.
In a sense, I have donned the mantle of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill). His Private Members' Motion on 10th February, 1967, led to the setting up of the Bolton Committee. That Motion, in c. 1955 of HANSARD, spoke of the increasing difficulties of small firms and called on the Government of the day to relieve them. Hon. Members may think that my Motion has cribbed his words. Why not? It was a good Motion. But I have been able to make two big changes.
I can acknowledge the firm and positive steps taken not only since the Bolton Report came out but since the General Election. What I am seeking today is a firm declaration from the Government that there is more to come.
I am talking about 1¼ million small firms, employing 25 per cent. of our work-force and accounting for 20 per cent. of our gross national product. These firms are vital to our national economy. If half of them each took on one more


new employee, we should have a shortage of labour in this country. Put another way, if we could increase the number of small firms operating by about 50 per cent. we should have half the present unemployment rate, because so many more people would be self-employed and we would have a potential growth in the economy and in employment.

Mr. Peter Rost: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the extraordinary scene on the benches opposite? The fact that they are empty shows that the concern with unemployment of hon. Members opposite does not extend to the point at which they would wish to support this most important Motion.

Mr. Redmond: Frankly, I express no surprise at this. It is exactly what I expected—

Mr. Alan Williams: Mr. Alan Williams(Swansea, West) rose—

Mr. Redmond: No, I will not keep giving way at the beginning of my speech. The interest of hon. Members is there to be seen—

Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redmond: No. I do not wish to take up a lot of time in what can only be a short debate.
I will not bore the House with a recital of all the provisions of the Bolton Report. The Government had already anticipated many of them before the report was published. They have accepted more of them, and I think that there are five recommendations left still to be approved. What a change from 1967, when my hon. Friend moved his Motion!
I could give a great long list of what the Government have done for small firms but that would probably bore the House. It is not my purpose to consider what has been done in the past. One does not get very far with congratulating a Government. What I want to do is ask for more.
It is worth mentioning two points which were particularly bitter experiences of mine—corporation tax and the short-fall provisions on taxation, which have now been removed. Like Oliver Twist, I am

coming back for more, but, unlike Oliver Twist, I expect to get it.
I want to draw attention to how the policies of the last Government in relation to small firms helped, through another policy, to do a great deal to establish our present high level of unemployment. I do so because when I speak to trade unionists in my constituency about small firms I find that there is a certain fear of what they regard as small firms. They say "If you work for a small business, you are in danger of takeover". This is a misconception of what constitutes a small firm.
What it amounts to is fear of another aspect of the policies of the Labour Government—the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, which forced the pace of takeovers and mergers far too fast. Some 3,000 public companies are quoted on the London Stock Exchange. If mergers had gone on at the same rate as in 1967–68 the final takeover would have been in about 1978. Presumably, there would then have been one firm quoted, and it would have been called UK Holdings, Ltd., or something similar. What a terrible picture! How ripe it would be for nationalisation! How awful to think of the industrial relations situation which would arise!
It is absurd to suggest that the process could have gone on at that rate, but it illustrates what was going on in what was called rationalisation, redeployment, shakeout—all the euphemistic terms which mean redundancy and unemployment.
I suppose that this was all forged in the white heat of the technological revolution. I always got a picture when these things were going on of a man telling his wife "I made a great contribution today to the advance of technology; I have got the sack"
I am not suggesting that takeovers as a natural course of events are wrong. What was wrong was to force the pace. It is important, because as companies disappear into other companies without new ones arising the result is unemployment. But if they disappear at a proper rate and new ones take their place there is a constant range of industry, which is surely what we are after. Under the Labour Government firms disappeared, while others were prevented from growing or


even from starting. That was a recipe for unemployment if ever there was one.
When I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announce the new regional policies, I was not alone in fearing that the Industrial Development Executive was another IRC under a different name. I lost no time in tackling my right hon. Friend about this, for the reasons I have explained. I was glad to be reassured and to have that reassurance confirmed when I read the Industry Bill which came before the House a short time ago. I would ask the Under-Secretary to rub in this point, because I know of many small businessmen who are a little alarmed to think that the IRC might be rearing its ugly head again. They are fearful that the benefits of the Industry Bill will be going to big companies and will be paid for out of taxation on small companies.
I accept that much of the help in the Industry Bill is for areas of higher employment. But if small firms can be encouraged to start in areas of high employment, as they grow they will bring diversity to those areas which have been previously over-dependent on old, traditional and often declining industries.
In this connection, I draw attention to the Bolton Report. I stress that I am talking about the Bolton Committee Report and not about my constituency. I have been referred to as "the hon. Member for the Bolton West Report" on a number of occasions.
I mention two firms in my constituency, not because there is anything outstanding about them but because I happen to have visited them recently—Silicone Fabrications Limited and Hird-Brown Limited. There are other firms in Bolton and thousands around the country, but the remarkable thing about these two firms is that they began operations from nothing very recently. They began in Bolton because we had the right sort of labour and the right sort of infrastructure for companies of their sort. They represent all that is best in British industry. They lead the markets in their field. They have a reputation throughout the world far greater than their size would justify. I admire; the men who run them. I wish we could encourage more firms to be like those. When the knockers of British industry get on the old game of saying how bad we are and

how bad British management is, I remind them that firms such as Silicone Fabrications and Hird-Brown are beavering away and creating secure jobs for those whom they employ. We need more firms such as those.
Small firms do not have only difficulties. They have some advantages, and it is only fair to put the other side of the balance sheet. One of their great advantages is good industrial relations. They can have good industrial relations because the board room is nearer the shop floor. Those who work in the board room are often busy on the shop floor themselves. Therefore, disputes are settled quickly, long before they become nasty disputes that lead to industrial unrest and strikes. On that score alone I appeal to the Government to help us to get more small firms, such as the two I have mentioned, started and developing.
The Small Businesses Association receives an average of three telephone calls per day from people who have the idea that they would like to start a small business and wonder how to go about it. I understand that the United States Government have a way of helping on this matter. They hold clinics—I think they are called "workshops"—which take people to square one in starting a small business. That seems an excellent idea which would help us sort the sheep from the goats. In other words, they find out, to begin with, whether a man has what it takes to start a business, whether he understands the snags which will occur when he has got started, and what he needs to develop the business. They start from a very fundamental point by asking him, or helping him to find out, whether he has the sort of wife it takes to start a small business. I know of many small businesses which have packed up in their early days simply because the proprietor has not had the sort of wife who would encourage him or who could understand the sort of encouragement she needed to give her husband when he was launching out as an entrepreneur. The Government should look at this matter when dealing with the proposals of the Bolton Committee for small firms advisory bureaux.
On that subject I must declare an interest. I am a director of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I am sure that the regional


chambers of commerce, with Government help, could be made suitable bodies for assisting the establishment of small firms, with advisory bureaux, too. I do not mean all chambers of commerce, but such chambers as Manchester, Liverpool, Bolton, Birmingham, probably Preston, and the larger centres. They are probably ideally suited for this work. But the most important thing about the small firms advisory bureau is that it must not be bureaucratic. The bureau's existence should be well and widely known as a first point of reference for the small businessman who is seeking help on a particular matter. Here we may find that what would be described as a problem could turn out to be only a symptom.
Here, also, I must declare an interest as a management consultant. If the small businessman, as often happens, is so close to the wood that he is unable to see the trees, he may put the wrong question to the small firms advisory bureau. Over the past few years several firms have told me that they were short of working capital and needed to introduce more equity capital into their business, and they have asked me where they can find more. In each case, an examination of the cash flow of the company has shown that its liquidity can be restored to the right level without introducing more equity into the business.
In such cases as these, what I fear is that the small firms advisory bureaux may refer the proprietor of the business to a finance house, whereas I would suggest that he be referred to a management consultant—not to run the company into vast assignments at enormous costs but to achieve something that is quite cheap and cheerful. If we do not have the small firms advisory bureaux how could this information be disseminated to small firms? The Bolton Committee made some remarks about management consultants and advertising. Here I am on dangerous ground, and again I must declare an interest. Some management consultants who have advertised in the past have been charlatans. One particular company was notorious for charging fat fees with no possible result. The answer is that the small firms advisory bureaux must have a list of management consultants qualified to help small firms with at

least the diagnosis of trouble at low cost.
Small firms do not want the Government breathing down their necks. The small businessman wants freedom to get on with the job, but with a Government who are understanding of his problems. Here I have another question for the Under-Secretary. I do not see how his Department can understand the problems of small firms when small firms are the very worst at giving information. I was grateful to the Prime Minister for his Answer to a Question about form-filling some months ago. As a businessman, I know how I hate filling in forms. The Under-Secretary should clear up this vital matter.
I turn to the question of the Common Market. When the Macmillan Government made their application to join the Common Market, I had the honour of being the Chairman of the North-West Export Club. That club consisted of people from small firms, whose qualification for membership was a maximum number of employees of about 250. It was made up of people such as myself who were keen on exporting. We even studied the Common Market as it applied to small firms, and we became very keen for Britain to enter. I am glad to find that that club, which still exists and is thriving—probably far better than it did when I was chairman—is still keen on Britain's entry to the Common Market, as are the small firms in my constituency with which I discussed the matter last summer in great detail.
Nevertheless, small firms sometimes have peculiar problems when it comes to exports. I have always wondered whether the Government and other people understand some of these difficulties. As an example I will refer to containerisation. Small firms by definition deal in small orders, which mean small loads. It is true that a number of small loads can be put together to make a big load for putting into a container. However, one then runs into the argument about stripping and stuffing. I do not want to go up that lane. One small firm has told me recently of the difficulties it now has with containers. By sending its orders into a packing warehouse to be put with others it is never quite sure where the goods are at any given time and, because of the extra


handling that goes into the orders, which have to be put into a container with other orders, it gets a surcharge from its forwarding agent. I hope that the small firms' section of the Department of Trade and Industry will look at that sort of thing.
Although these orders from overseas may be small individually, in total they are not chicken-feed. I know a number of small firms in Lancashire, which were members of the export club at its inception and still are, which export as much as 90 per cent. of their turnover. I have done my share of sales abroad in the past, but the biggest individual order that I ever brought back was valued at £5,000. Surely the time is rapidly approaching for the Government to do something to bring about the co-operation of small firms to a greater extent than exists now and to help them to exploit common opportunities. I suggest that the Government might use the export club movement which I founded. The North-West was the first in this respect. As always the North-West of England leads the way in many things.
Regarding the Common Market, I had a letter the other day from a firm in my constituency, BYC Engineers Ltd., asking me to impress upon the Government the need for help in two ways. The first was to get value added tax into operation as soon as possible. BYC said:
It makes sense to us as international traders.
To support that view I was sent a copy of a letter the firm had had from its Belgian agents, which contained these words:
Until the British Government takes necessary steps to enable you to quote reasonable prices you are at a disadvantage.
The point was that companies in this country are carrying the full burden of British taxation with purchase tax, where it applies, on all their purchases, SET, and so on. Then they export their goods which immediately attract VAT in Belgium and all over the Continent. So we are suffering in a way from double taxation on our exports. I was glad to assure BYC that VAT was on the way.
I have raised this matter this afternoon because, although VAT will give an advantage to the small exporting firms,

it will bring other problems—for example, accounting, where small companies will need advice and guidance.
The second point that BYC made to me was that the constant upward pressure of wage costs, both direct and indirect, at a pace set by the big firms and nationalised industries, should be controlled as soon as possible. It was put to me in this way: "We are about to cross the Rubicon. We have reached it, but we do not want to go across because, if we do, we will not get back. The only thing on the other side of the Rubicon is more unemployment in Bolton."
My final point on the Common Market is that the small firms are asking for equal treatment with their opposite numbers in Europe with regard to restrictive practices. They want to be able to co-operate for combined sales, so long as they do not exceed a certain size, without being hauled before the Restrictive Trade Practices Court. This may mean new legislation, but I hope that the Under-secretary in reply will give us some guidance on that matter.
The effect of what I have been saying is to encourage the entrepreneur. I regard him as the greatest social service in this country. He does not see it this way. He does not regard himself as a social service. He is in business because he wants to do the best he can for himself and his family; but, as he succeeds, he creates wealth for the nation and jobs for other people.
The Bolton Committee's Report expressed surprise that certain small firms were more efficient than big firms. It surprised me that the Committee was surprised. I should have thought it was obvious. I have been around for quite a time in both politics and industry. I have served on committees of many sorts, political, industrial and commercial, and on bodies like the British Legion. I have travelled abroad with my briefcase looking for orders. I have met men and women of all shades of political opinion in many countries, but I have never yet met that paragon of virtue who has reached the standard where he can spend other people's money better than he can spend his own. I suggest that the entrepreneur of small business is looking after his money and, in doing so, is serving the nation.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) not only on coming top in the ballot for Private Members' Motions but more particularly on selecting this important subject and highlighting it so capably
I, too, claim a similar qualification for speaking on this subject, having spent my working life before entering politics struggling with the problems of a small family business. Not only do such firms have problems of fierce competition, but often that is the least of their problems. The problems that face the small family business today are more frequently the pressing problems of survival and fighting for the position and conditions which are necessary for the small business to survive. In that respect, I particularly congratulate that small group of enterprising people who in 1967 established the Smaller Businesses Association on the valiant work that that organisation has done since 1967
More recently I have had the privilege of being a member of its council and seeing its work from the inside. A lot of the progress that has been made in pressing for the conditions that smaller firms need and the success that has been achieved in bringing about those conditions is due to that organisation
The Institute of Directors put the matter in perspective in a recent survey when it showed, as my hon. Friend revealed, that 25 per cent. of the working population was employed in small businesses and that collectively these small businesses were responsible for 20 per cent. of the gross national product. That is more than the entire output or contribution of the nationalised industries. We spend a lot of time in the House discussing the problems of the National Coal Board, the railways, the electricity boards and other nationalised industries, but in total they do not achieve an output greater than that of all the small businesses. Therefore, my hon. Friend has made an important point in highlighting this aspect of our economy
The CBI in its survey revealed that in manufacturing alone 2½ million workers are employed in small firms, and the output of these businesses is in excess of £6,000 million. Of the manufacturing

industry firms in this country, 97 per cent. employ under 500 people and 75 per cent, employ under 100 people. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that large businesses are merely the smaller business of yesterday, and the large businesses of today still rely to a large extent on the smaller businesses. Companies such as British Leyland are in many respects assemblers of parts supplied by specialist smaller businesses. They choose to buy those pants from those smaller businesses because they can manufacture those parts more efficiently and deliver more promptly than the large business could manufacture them itself.
The decline of the small company should have been worrying Governments in this country for a longer time than it has. The number of new companies steadily increased up to 1964 and since that date showed a marked decline. This decline has now been reversed, and the number of new companies registered last year was the highest since 1961. This year's number of new registrations looks like being higher still, so we are beginning to correct this situation.
Professor Erhard, sometimes called the "economic miracle man of Germany", is on record as saying that the economic miracle was due not so much to the achievements of their great industries but to that which has been achieved by the smaller private companies. In that respect my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) was ahead of his time when he highlighted the unique advantages of the smaller businesses in a document entitled "Acorns into Oaks" in 1967.
Those who work in smaller businesses have a much greater sense of involvement in the company, and in this type of business there is more co-operation with management because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West said, management is actually on the work floor for so much of the time. This leads to much greater job satisfaction. It is, therefore, not surprising that the record of absence through sickness in smaller companies is dramatically lower, on any method of comparison, than the record of absence through sickness in the larger companies. By the same token, the industrial relations record of the smaller companies is remarkably better, too.
We have reached the stage in this country where if there is a strike in a small factory employing 10 or a dozen people it is reported in the newspapers as a joke and something which is unique. Yet in the large factories where official strikes and other disputes are so numerous many of them go unrecorded. There is a smaller staff turnover in the smaller businesses. These are social benefits which are often overlooked. The proprietors of these businesses contribute to the local community in a way that managers in the larger companies do not. The proprietors of smaller businesses contribute a disproportionate number of people to such important bodies as local councils, charity committee and chambers of commerce.
In these days when we are troubled with unemployment one factor concerning the small businesses which is often overlooked is that they are indigenous to the region in which they exist. Therefore, when there is a recession they cannot close a branch factory. When a large company with, perhaps, six factories spread over the country is faced with a decline in business so that it can produce its requirements in five factories, instead of cutting production at each factory by one sixth it short-cuts the matter by closing one factory and operating the five others on full production. We cannot blame it for doing so because no doubt it is economic so to do. But the smaller business which is indigenous to the region cannot do that, and its contribution, therefore, to development areas such as my own on Merseyside is very much greater than that of the branch factories of large companies.
The smaller businesses also occupy a larger sector of the service industries, and the economists tell us that the service industries will expand over the next decade. As the country becomes economically more sophisticated, so the number of manufacturing companies and the amount of employment in them tends to decline as they become capital intensive. As the country becomes wealthier and the consumer's purchasing power increases, so the demand for service industries increases. It is here that the smaller businesses have a significant part to play.
Tourism in London means a great deal to the service industries and the smaller businesses there. For example, the attrac-

tions of Carnaby Street have not been achieved by the big stores, which have largely gone to sleep. The smaller one-man businesses have experimented and taken in a few friends and partners who have brought about a revolution in Carnaby Street. The same thing has happened in Kings Road and in the antique trade. The newer and expanding businesses are being exploited by the enterprising smaller concerns.
The Government have done a great deal since June, 1970, to help the smaller businesses. In particular, the acceptance of the major recommendation of the Bolton Committee's Report that there should be a small firms division within the Department of Trade and Industry has been one of the greatest contributions towards solving the problems of the small business. On behalf of the small businesses of this country, I congratulate and thank the Minister who was responsible for initially setting up that division, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). He has earned the gratitude of all the smaller businesses of this country. The benefits of what he has done have already been seen in large measure. More is to come I am sure in due course under the guidance of the present Minister, whom we welcome to this position.
Many of the onerous aspects of the Industrial Training Act as applied to small businesses have already been repealed. Form filling and statistical surveys are a particular burden on the proprietors of small businesses. These proprietors are men and women who often are not particularly well qualified to handle these sophisticated questionnaires. They are more concerned with working on the shop floor and producing the product at which they are expert.
The Government's proposal for a lower rate of corporation tax for smaller businesses when the new system of corporation tax is introduced next April is particularly welcome because smaller businesses do not have access to the capital markets in the way that the large companies do and they have to rely instead to a great extent on retentions.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Member take this opportunity to make clear that it is not a lower rate of tax? It will be the same rate as this year on retained capital. It is just that the small


businesses will not be facing the higher rate that they would otherwise have faced.

Mr. Cockeram: That is a common misconception, and I am surprised that the hon. Member shares it. The smaller business paying a dividend at the moment pays more in tax than it will pay in future under the Government's proposals, and it is wrong to suggest that proprietors of the smaller businesses are not entitled to interest on their capital.
The Government have introduced more generous measures to enable controlling proprietors of smaller businesses to contribute to their pensions. The former provisions were quite inadequate, and the change is very much welcomed. Also welcomed is the repeal of many of the "shortfall" provisions which apply to close companies, but I believe we have further to go in this direction. I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the recommendation in the Bolton Report about the small firms advisory bureaux. I and many others concerned with small firms do not agree with Bolton's belief in the need for these bureaux. Advice should not be divorced from the lending of money and the raising of capital.
The Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation is giving a lead. Smaller businesses borrowing capital from the ICFC receive from it supervision and guidance on how they should manage their business. The ICFC exercises a sort of overseeing control of the capital it has lent. The clearing banks have something to learn here. They should consider a greater supervision of loans to smaller companies. Retired directors of close companies and others could be recruited by the banks at comparatively modest cost to operate such a system of guidance and advice on loans. The advice offered should not be divorced from the advance of the capital.
I am pleased that the Bolton Report commented that there was no evidence of a Bolton gap—in other words, any lack of opportunity for the smaller companies to raise capital. I share this view. However, many smaller companies are not aware where they can obtain capital, and in that respect assistance is needed from trade associations. It is not necessary

to set up any further organisation or a proliferation of advice centres.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider four measures to help smaller businesses. First, the disclosure provisions are particularly onerous to smaller businesses. For example, a small company running a one-factory operation must file its accounts, which are available for inspection by its competitors. These include factories of a similar size and scale, probably in the same neighbourhood, but factories which are branches of a large public company. Although that large public company publishes its accounts, it is not possible for the small businessman to see the detailed accounts of the branch factory which is one of his competitors. I know the Government have made some provisions to cover this, but they have not gone far enough.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Might not it be better to extend the disclosure requirements to the branch factories of large businesses rather than reduce the disclosure requirements for small businesses?

Mr. Cockeram: I am grateful for that suggestion, and would willingly accept it. All I am arguing for is parity, so that the larger company is not at an advantage over the smaller company.
Secondly, although much has been done to make the close company provisions less onerous, I hope the Government will give consideration to the complete abolition of shortfall requirements on trading income. It is argued that from a taxation point of view this would make it possible for small companies to turn themselves into "moneybox companies", piling up cash. In some instances this is legitimate if it is retained earnings needed for future expansion. In other cases it may not be needed for expansion. But now that we have capital gains tax those companies are caught when the shares are transferred. Many of the provisions for shortfall were put into Finance Acts long before we had any capital gains tax.
Thirdly, capital gains tax is also a problem for the smaller business, in that shares perhaps being transferred on average at 10-year intervals reflect the increased value caused by inflation in the interim decade, and capital gains tax has to be paid on a mythical gain. In fact,


it is a tax on the capital of these smaller businesses.
Fourthly, there is the problem of death duties, often called the "killer tax" for smaller businesses. I am glad my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has produced a Green Paper on an inheritance tax. I hope that when introducing his new proposals he will take into account the need to accumulate savings after tax to cover the increased paper value of shares in smaller companies.
Smaller companies are at a great disadvantage on the occasions when the Revenue insists on an assets valuation for death duty. The valuation of the shares in a public company is always on the Stock Exchange price, largely on a yield basis. I hope my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will bear in mind that the damage that can be done by an assets valuation has been acknowledged and taken into account for some smaller businesses. There is provision for a 45 per cent. rebate in the case of farms, to save breaking up a smallholding into an even smaller, uneconomic holding, and that rebate has more recently been extended to industrial buildings and plant by the same argument. I was particularly pleased to note that the Bolton Report recommended that the 45 percent. rebate should apply to net trading assets of smaller companies. If my right hon. Friend cannot accept that recommendation, I hope he will accept as a compromise that where a small company on a death has its shares valued on an assets basis it should be permitted to adopt the 45 per cent. rebate. A company should have the option of deciding whether to accept valuation on a yield basis without the rebate or on an assets basis with the rebate. But I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend will be able to accept the full Bolton recommendation and give full (rebate as Bolton recommended.
I repeat that the smaller private business does not want patronage or protection. The last sentences of the Bolton Report sum the matter up very fully:
Fortunately, the sector has shown its resilience in adverse conditions…We believe it will continue to do so…but we trust that in future it will be with the greatest possible encouragement from public opinion and understanding from Government.
I echo those sentiments.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram) made some remarks about the provision of advice to small firms, and I should like to return to those points later. But I begin by expressing appreciation to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) for initiating this important debate, which is of considerable interest. It is only because Parliament is engaged in extremely heavy legislative processes at the moment that the attendance is somewhat sparser than might have been hoped. A number of my hon. Friends who would have wished to take part in the debate are otherwise engaged in the building. But the whole House welcomes the opportunity provided by the debate.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West was less than generous in his recognition of the real interest evinced by the Labour Government in the problems of small industries, which led to the setting up of the Bolton Committee, whose Report is the foundation of the debate. It was not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) who, as President of the Board of Trade, took a personal interest in these problems, but a number of others who, by their initiative in the matter, gave rise to the most far-reaching inquiry into the problems of small industries that we have had for a very long time.
The Bolton Committee is to be congratulated on having produced such a comprehensive, in some respects controversial and in many respects novel, report, which contains a vast amount of information about the problems of small industries and a number of very useful suggestions, some of which have already been acted upon.
It is also right that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) should receive recognition and the tribute of the House for the work he did as Under-Secretary of State in setting up the Small Firms Division of the Department of Trade and Industry which was so welcome.
I want to confine my brief remarks to one aspect of the subject which got perhaps relatively little treatment in the report. Indeed, it was not even mentioned in the summary at the end of the report of the eight major contributions


which the small firms make to our economy. This is the extremely important rôle played by small firms in the regional development of what might be called the peripheral non-industrial areas I think this will be widely recognised to be very important in maintaining an economic balance in large areas of our country. It is partly because of my experience, even within my own constituency, of the important rôle that these small firms play that I want to contribute to the debate.
In the Highlands and Islands of Scotland there was for many years no recognition that manufacturing industry could have a stabilising rôlein the development of the economy and could help to provide opportunities for the employment of young people particularly who would otherwise leave the area. In a sense, we have seen innovation in the Highlands and Islands in the assistance of small firms which would be worthy of study by the country at large, as it both touches upon a number of important principles and provides evidence of the kind of problems which can be partly assisted by the intervention of Government or of Government-backed public bodies.
One of the features of the small firm and its rôle in the local economy is that it can be both stronger and, obversely, weaker when the economic situation is blowing hard against industry generally. It is sometimes stronger in that it may find that, although the level of demand overall falls, there may be a particular need for an industry and it remains relatively untouched. Equally, however, it may be weaker in that it may be swept aside by a side wind and not be able to draw upon the resources of a larger concern to help tide it over the difficult times. Both these phenomena have been observable in the Highlands situation.
It is partly because of that that I take issue with the hon. Member for Bebington in his view that specialist advisory services should only be linked to the raising of capital. It is not always the necessity to raise new capital or to expand commercial or industrial endeavour that leads small firms to look for the kind of advice that might be helpful.
Much of the advice which firms in the Highlands look for may relate to such specialist services as information on how

to obtain the best terms for transporting their products, for example, to quite remote places. It is not within the resources of a small firm to make the necessary inquiries without considerable difficulty, and the end may well be that it will choose some rather less economic alternative source than one which may be available. I recently heard of a sweet-manufacturing firm in the Orkneys which got into difficulties over the transport of its products. The firm wanted to export but encountered the high cost of transport. The Highlands and Islands Development Board was approached for advice on how best to deal with the high cost of freight. The board had within its own resources information on a number of alternative routings and freight charges which, I am glad to say, greatly helped the firm and, indeed, gave it a new lease of life to enable it to expand its activities when there had been some risk that they would be contracted instead.
There is much to be said for looking carefully at the proposal of the Bolton Report about the setting up of specialist small firms' advisory bureaux throughout the country to advance and make available this kind of advice, co-ordinated on a national scale. Of course, no one is forced to take the advice and in the last analysis the managers of the small firms would have to evaluate the advice for themselves, and it may well be that many would not choose to use it. But it would be desirable at least to have it available, and not only because a firm has some need for raising capital.
Those who have spoken already in the debate have indicated the importance of the small firm to the economy as a whole, and it does not require emphasis from me. In a sense, that is the foundation upon which we all operate and which we all understand. But at this time it is right to ask how the Government themselves envisage assisting small firms, in particular to develop their export trade, especially within the European Economic Community. It is here that I think that assistance in co-ordinating and providing, as it were, umbrella services may be of great importance in enabling these vital parts of our national industrial economy to take advantage of membership of the EEC.
In my constituency alone are a number of small firms which have a quite


admirable record of exports—for example, firms such as Caithness Leather, Scottish Instruments, Sutherland Fly, Caithness Cheese and Caithness Glass, among others, which employ each up to 100 people and have demonstrated a capacity to export. But, of course, these are all in a sense growth industries whose potential could be realised within the Community with a considerably larger export trade. How do the Government foresee assisting firms of this kind to discover new markets, to arrange for exhibitions within the Common Market countries at which their products can be set off to advantage? How do they see follow-up services, after-sales inquiries and so on being best handled?
There was one curious omission or under-playing of an important question in the context of the industrial development of the remoter areas by the Bolton Committee, and that was with regard to craft industries. It made no specific recommendations although it recognised a case for assisting financially craft industries on social although not economic grounds. It is very hard to draw the line between what is truly a craft industry alone and what is truly a small industry based upon craft which has growth potential.
A number of industries that I have mentioned in my constituency are clearly border-line cases which have expanded from humble beginnings to the employment of perhaps two or three dozen people with a considerable export potential. It would be wrong if, for any kind of ideological reasons, there was any discrimination against craft industries. I do not imagine that would be in the minds of Ministers, but classifying industries as craft industries is perhaps a somewhat out-moded way of approaching industrial problems.
I agree with and endorse what the hon. Member for Bebington said about the growing importance of the service sector. This is of tremendous importance particularly in the developing rural areas. In passing, I wish to record the sense of disappointment experienced in many areas when the Government felt it necessary to terminate the hotel development scheme which was beginning to bear considerable fruit in some areas. It does not seem consonant with properly catering for the growth of tourism in the rural

areas. In the light of the developments involved in the introduction of the new Industry Bill and the change of philosophy which this involves the Government might do well to reconsider this scheme.
I would also recommend the Minister, although with little hope that he will look favourably upon the suggestion, to consider carefully the advantages for the small firm in particular of establishing, even if only in an experimental way at this stage, a State holding company. As the hon. Member for Bebington has said, the difficulties of small firms in financing their operations from the capital market means that they have to rely on retained profits. The rate of expansion may not be as rapid as it would be if access to the capital market were more open.

Mr. Cockeram: Mr. Cockeram rose—

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member wishes to intervene but I have not finished developing this point and perhaps he would prefer to intervene later. This is a subject of some interest to me in the Highlands context. Again we have experence of an analogous development through the operations of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in taking equity shareholdings in companies operating in the Highlands or for the benefit of the Highlands, which followed incidentally from the passage through this House of a Bill which I introduced in the lifetime of the last Parliament.
It is frequently better and easier for companies—as has been proved by the experience of the Highlands and Islands Development Board—to expand in this way rather than to encumber themselves with servicing loans at an early and delicate stage of their growth. Consequently there is a case for the establishment of some such national body with these financial powers which would not only have the effect of strengthening the capital base of a number of small firms operating in such areas but might also help to protect them from the rough winds which sometimes blow through our economy.

Mr. Cockeram: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one of the major points made by the Bolton Committee was that there was no shortage of capital to assist the smaller businesses and that: there was no "Bolton gap"? I reiterated that aspect of the Committee's report. On


that argument I do not think it can be assumed or implied that I was arguing that there was a necessity for a State holding company.

Mr. Maclennan: I would not have attributed that to the hon. Gentleman. I think he tried to have it both ways. On the one hand, he was trying to suggest that small firms ought to have an easier tax burden because of their difficulty in obtaining access to the capital market and, on the other hand, he was saying that they really have no capital problems at all which might, if carried to its logical conclusion, throw some doubt upon his suggestions for the alleviation of taxation or special taxation of small companies, which was a proposition rejected by the Bolton Committee. I do not expect that the suggestion I have made will meet with overwhelmingly enthusiastic support on the other side of the House and it may well remain to a Government from this side of the House to carry forward what I believe would be an important industrial innovation.
I want to draw attention to one area of difficulty observable at present in the Highlands and Islands due to the uncertainties which have arisen over the Government's intentions in assisting industry in the region. I have sought to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland on one or two occasions the doubts about whether the new Industrial Development Executive would be in a position to offer financial assistance to companies operating in the Highlands areas substantially greater than would be available from the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
There is considerable doubt both about the terms upon which that aid would be offered to small firms operating in these areas by the new Industrial Development Executive and about the level of assistance available. The Secretary of State has contented himself with saying that the aid which is available is different. No one doubts that. What is needed now is for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Department of Trade and Industry to get together and to issue a clear statement of their intentions. It is perhaps significant that in none of the literature produced by the DTI is any reference made to the special assistance available in the Highlands and Islands for incoming

industry. This is unfortunate because, as was recommended by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, there should be a special financial edge available to be offered to small firms operating in areas of such peculiar difficulty as the Highlands and Islands. It is not clear what, if any, special edge remains after the introduction of the Government's new proposals. So there is here both a general point to be answered and a particular question of how these smaller firms should proceed if they wish to expand at this time.
In my view it is quite possible that it is this uncertainty which is holding up useful investment in the area. I would simply draw attention to the fact that since the hon. Gentleman's Government took office there has not been one single new manufacturing industry which has located iself in Caithness on the industrial sites there, although in the 18 months prior to the General Election there were no fewer than five new small businesses, now employing upwards of 250 people.
This is an unhealthy situation stemming at least in part from the uncertainty which the Government have allowed to prevail, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now feel able to throw some light on that situation.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Charles Simeons: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) for choosing this subject. This may, perhaps, sound like a hollow reiteration, but bearing in mind that this is the first debate on this subject in the whole of this Parliament—just as the Motion I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to choose, and which dealt with road transport, was the first debate on that subject—all hon. Members, I am sure, can say with great conviction that they congratulate my hon. Friend in giving us this opportunity, because if he had not we should not have had it. I am sure that we are also grateful that the debate is happening when we are all awake and not late at night or in the very early hours of the morning.
The problems of small businesses are quite different from those of large businesses. They are totally different animals. Small businesses are not minor versions of large businesses, nor are large companies grown up versions of small businesses. There is a great need for both


large and small businesses, and they are interdependent. Certainly in my constituency, an engineering constituency, to a great extent the small businesses fill the rôleof sub-contractors without whom the large companies would not function. I hesitate to think where Concorde or the Queen Elizabeth or even the building which houses the Department of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would be, I wonder if they would be in being at all now, if it had not been for small businesses. Conversely, if the Concorde project were to stop, or if any of our major engineering projects or companies were suddenly to cease, the effect on small businesses would be quite enormous. So it is a great opportunity we have today to discuss their problems, and that is why we all welcome it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram) stressed how small companies employ in total large numbers of people. Of course they do. Because they have small-scale working they have good communications between employers and workpeople, as my hon. Friend said—good industrial relations, because there is interest in the job. Those of us who have been to the large factories of the great motor car manufacturers, and others, will have seen the belts going by with men doing the same job time after time, and we know that many craftsmen leave those companies and go to work for small firms, even possibly at a lower rate of pay. A man goes because he wants a job which is interesting, and also he wants one on which he can depend. A small business does not lay its people off when things are a bit rough Small businesses do not have strikes, which mean people get laid off. They do not have strikes because there is that feeling amongst the men of belonging to the business, and they know how well their firm is doing. If the stockroom is getting empty they know that it is no good shouting the odds for more money; when the stockroom is piling up a good boss will see that they get it.
I was fascinated when I went on a lorry trip to France, and when the driver of the lorry I was in went into a first-class dining room, which I thought excellent, although I myself was aiming for the cafeteria, until I felt that I should not go off on my own, so I joined him.

I said to him, "Does your subsistence allow for this?" He replied, "No. We do not have subsistence as such. I have a good boss. He expects me to do a good day's work, and because I do it he pays the bill. He expects me to come in here and to have a glass of the old vino, and I send him in the bill." I could not picture this happening in one of the large companies in my constituency, and I doubt whether any hon. Members would find it happening in large companies in their constituencies.
As I say, in a small firm there is a special feeling of belonging. There is also great inventiveness and great enterprise in small companies, although their very dependence on large companies stems from the fact that they are so often unable to develop it, and the people with inventiveness have often to pass it on, and when they or a small firm become involved with a big company the inventive spirit is often quenched even to disappearing. My hon. Friend mentioned great inventiveness in his constituency. I know of one small firm which, I believe, exports spaghetti to Italy. It is difficult to picture a big company doing that.
Small companies are efficient in day to day practice because they have to be, but, on the whole, they make much poorer use of their assets than do large companies with theirs, and that is because the small companies have not financial backing. There are certain problems there, and that is what we are discussing. They have difficulty in raising finance and having sufficient finance available because they become creditors of large companies.
A large company can send out an edict that it wants its account settled in six months. A small company dare not do that, dare not do more than ask politely for payment, and it dare not because it is afraid that it will not get orders in future from the big company, its creditor. I was once in the very happy position of selling to ICI large quantities worth a few thousand pounds while we bought from them £100 worth, and I was able to beat the ICI system for settlement. ICI wrote saying it would not supply more unless I settled the account. I wrote saying, "We shall not pay your account unless you pay yours." That was not bad, because ICI owed my company some hundreds of pounds, whereas


my company owed ICI17s. 6d. However, this shows the disadvantage in which small companies can find themselves.
Therefore, the first thing which small companies, just as much as big ones, are looking for is that inflation should be contained, and certainly those in small companies, both employers and employees, are doing all they can to meet it. Although there may be funds available it is much more difficult for small companies to acquire them in the same way large companies can because the equity is not marketable; it is a very narrow market in the shares in small companies, if any market at all. Also there is always the threat of death, even at an early age, of one of the shareholders, and that can upset the pattern of a company. It is vital that small companies should be given opportunity to make profits. I am certain that the measures taken in the Finance Bill are beginning to give them this opportunity, certainly for some companies in my constituency in Luton.
A small firm has the great virtue of understanding its business. This is one of the first fundamentals, but a small firm needs support to make the most of it. This is being given by the Small Businesses Association. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West referred to companies which ring up the office three times a day. I do not wish to suggest that we are not interested in the Small Businesses Association but, having once met the General Secretary, I am not surprised that businesses ring her up three times a day. I think she is sitting in the Gallery now—

Mr. Redmond: I was referring to three individuals per day asking for advice on how to begin business as small firms. I should think that the members are ringing her up all the time.

Mr. Simeons: The first support which small businesses need is expert accountancy advice, and they can get that easily. Here I differ from my hon. Friends the Member for Bebington and the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on the question of disclosure. I am not saying that there should not be disclosure, but large companies and small companies can never be on a par, because the small companies

have to bare their souls. They are asked to say where their weaknesses are and then the big boys can take them over. I see no virtue whatever in disclosure by small companies, because anyone who is not a nitwit can find out the financial status of a company without waiting 14 months for the accounts to come out. By the time the accounts have come out they are probably out of date and the whole situation has altered.
The fact that accounts come out from a large company does not necessarily mean that there is disclosure. If it did, what was everyone doing about Rolls-Royce? A few people should have their heads on the block over that. That experience shows that accounts are not a crystal ball and do not show very much. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether in making small companies disclose their position we are offering them up to the altar of sacrifice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West has dwelt on the need for services towards better management. That is a subject in which I have an interest in that I have been involved in a group which is endeavouring to start an institute for production control. Management is one thing and the delivery of goods is another. The small company probably delivers its goods quickly because it has to get the money in, but there is virtue in looking at the methods of production control.
One factor which needs expertise which is not readily available is environmental pollution, particularly effluent treatment. Many problems will arise because, as we begin to put our house in order, small companies will have to conform. We may have to consider, bearing in mind how expensive it is, whether finance should be made available at low rates of interest to enable this to be done. It does not matter so much where a company is set up; what really matters is the type of river. A company setting up on a filthy river has to conform, but a company setting up on the Thames or in the south of England where the rivers are clean will have to conform so stringently.
I had lunch today with an engineer who runs a sewerage works not far from Luton. His expertise is such that he claims—and it is true—that he has the best fish in the whole of England; he is


willing to compare them size for size with fish from anywhere. The fish just came there and have increased to such an extent that he is embarrassed by the numbers. That is the sort of standard we have to achieve, but it is extremely expensive and often completely outside the scope of the small business.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking into the question of disposal by county councils. It is one thing to set up disposal centres and another to transport the material which is to be disposed of. For example, if there is a million gallons of waste to be disposed of it may be better to treat it on the site. We need to look at the evidence.
The process of registration for all companies is much too slow and I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will look into this.
I am not seeking Government intervention. The Government have the rôle of pointing out the directions from which help can be given. The nucleus is already there. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West mentioned chambers of commerce. My own chambers of commerce has studied the Bolton Report and is drawing expertise from the large companies which have set up a panel to help the small companies. By extending that system to exporting, effluent treatment, production control and so on a great deal can be done, partly on a voluntary basis and partly supported by the industrial liaison officers from the technical colleges who also have their own support. I am not opposed to an industrial advice bureau but I do not believe that it will solve all our ills.
I enjoyed hearing the Under-Secretary of State speak at the lunch at the annual general meeting of the Small Businesses Association. He said that (he had a lot to do with small businesses because people came to him in his capacity as a lawyer for advice. I suggest to him that that rôle should be reversed. He will have to go out to them. It is only by going out and checking up whether the things we are saying today are correct and that they are acted upon that we shall be able to offer a better future for small businesses.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: The hon. Member for

Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who suggested the setting up of a State holding company to help small businesses cannot know the ethic and motivation of men who run small businesses. They are entrepreneurs, aggressively and robustly independent, who are just as likely to thumb their noses at a Conservative Government as at a Government of any other complexion—and long live that attitude.
Capital is available to enterprising people in this country as it is in America. Wherever there is private enterprise there is money which is looking for enterprising people, young people with energy and brains. Money is there and it can be got by the more enterprising members of our community.
I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have picked up the suggestions contained in the Bolton Report. The Government are more than half-way through the recommendations if my score card is correct. I regret that we are behind some Common Market countries in this matter, and behind America with its Small Business Administration. That is a disappointment, but we must remember that the six years of the previous Administration were probably the roughest six years for small businesses in the history of this country.
Immediately after the small business administration was set up here I met my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who was then Minister. I believed at that time, and still do, that the most difficult job for the Minister in charge of small firms is how to communicate with these aggressive individualists. It is not easy to get hold of them; they are too busy to bother! The more successful ones believe that it is through their own enterprise that they have got on, and this makes them more independent than ever. I repeat, the problem of communication will be the biggest.
I am delighted that the Department has introduced this prize. I had some conversations about whether we should initiate scholarships—for short courses or travel to be offered to entrepreneurs, as one snag is that these small entrepreneurs do not get around as much as they should and do not have adequate communication with their fellow businessmen and those in their line of business which is vital to their well-being.
One modern idea which should be considered is the technique of programmed learning. Since the businessmen with whom I am dealing are likely to have their noses well to the grindstone and since they do not become involved in the mainstream of industrial and management training to the degree they should, programmed learning will have great relevance to their needs. For example, I have known programmed learning applied to hamburg makers in Wimpy Bars where use is made of teaching machines on how to become a hamburg maker or chef. Surely if one can programme teaching methods on how to make a hamburger, there must be many businesses to which this technique could be applied—for example, to discounted cash flow techniques. My hon. Friend who introduced the debate said that if small firms are told to reduce their stock or get in their debts they will have more capital with which to expand. This is the sort of technique which can be programmed. Therefore, I urge the Minister to look at programmed learning because it is so suitable to the entrepreneur.
Since people running small businesses are scattered throughout the country and are not the sort of people to make journeys to places of education, then the use of programmed learning could be made available to them cheaply and efficiently. The small businessman could use this technique in his own time, and in the middle of the night if he so wished. There must be 20 or 30 techniques which would lend themselves to this sort of learning. I am not qualified to speak about the application of this technique to the production side of a company, but I am certain that in the realm of production much could be taught to the small firms.
There is one area in which small businesses will never be able to compete with big business, and I refer to lobbying in this place. There was an article last week in the Financial Times entitled "Lots of Access and Little Success" which referred to the lobbies that existed. About nine years ago I said in a debate that lobbies in this country existed just as widely as they did in the United States. I said in the House that the National Union of Railwaymen and the National Union of Teachers and various others had

their lobbies here and my remarks were not given a very great welcome on the other side. It does not need much imagination to realise that the Small Businesses Association will not have the sort of resources for lobbying at its command as, say, those at the command of ICI and will not be able to make the sort of appeal to the Government as is made by big business.
The Financial Times article is well worth reading. The big companies pay very highly for these lobbying services. It was suggested in the article that the Heinz company in the United States is willing to spend 200,000 dollars to create a lobby in Washington. I am convinced that manufacturing companies here will always outpace groups of small businessmen in assemblying lobbies. We in this House have a moral duty to see that the voice of small business is heard.
In a modern industrialised society such as ours a great growth area in our economy is that of the services demanded by the public, and this is one area in which the small entrepreneur can excel. The Bolton Committee's Report estimated that 75 per cent. of employment in catering is provided by small firms. The very large firms are trying to get into service industry. I believe that in the fullness of time they will be able to do so, but they will not be as successful as they have been in manufacturing.
I believe that young people should look at all the advantages of employment in a service industry rather than in industries producing goods. However, I have no doubt that many of these young people will go into production and will succeed magnificently.
I should like to refer to a specific point, and this relates to a suggestion which was rejected by the Bolton Committee. I refer to what happens when a small businessman finds himself the subject of a compulsory purchase order and, through no fault of his own, suddenly finds that he has made a capital profit. I took up this matter with the Treasury recently. This relates to the small firm which does not seek to make a capital gain but has one foisted upon it.

Mr. Simeons: Will my hon. Friend consider the sort of situation which


occurred in my constituency where a firm had a compulsory purchase order thrust upon it and presumably would have had to pay capital gains tax. However, the Council decided that it did not want the land and said that the firm could tender for it back again. Does my hon. Friend not agree that this sort of activity produces an odd situation?

Mr. Proudfoot: I am convinced that capital gains which flow from this sort of situation have some weird results. Surely in the case of a compulsory purchase order there is no need to impose capital gains tax on somebody who has made a profit which he did not want to make in the first place. We all know what happens to property when the Government suddenly decide to build a motorway or large roads in one's constituency. It produces planning blight and the value of nearby properties is thereby reduced. A man can only sell at reduced value; then along comes the council and slaps a compulsory purchase order on the property and the man finds himself faced with a profit. He loses out at both ends because of blight and because he has made a profit which he has not sought. This surely is an instance where my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could take action in his next Budget and prevent lots of heartaches for the small businessman.
I remember recently addressing 300 students at the Hull University. I thought many of them were the sort of people who on leaving university might wish to go into business on their own. When I asked, "How many of you are going into business on your own?", I was shattered with the answer: only two people put up their hands. Our educational system is organised to produce grey-suited men to work in the big organisations. Young students who dress in such a weird way are only kicking at the fact that sooner or later they will have to take their small part in a huge organisation in which all their individuality will be drawn from them. I asked the same sort of question at a local grammar school in my constituency with the same sort of result.
This is the sort of question that should be asked of a young person before he gets to university and certainly before

he gets to grammar school. It never crosses the minds of our educationalists that a vital part of our economy is the entrepreneurs and the small businesses, and that there should be more encouragement earlier in life to young people to have a go on their own. I urge school teachers to point out to young students that to paint a picture is creative, that to write a book is creative, but that to build a business is every bit as creative.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: We have listened to some very interesting arguments, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) for introducing such an important topic today. However, I deplore the lack of attendance of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They are represented by a trilogy, by three players, of whom so far only one has played. That is all that we have heard on the subject of small firms.
The only contentious item to have arisen so far has been the recommendation of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the setting up of a State holding company. After many years of nationalisation failures and increased debt, I expected right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to have got away from that idea, especially when we know that IRI of Italy turned out a loss last year of £60 million.
I am convinced that the small firm in this country is in character, and that its continuance is necessary for our survival. But two factors continue to threaten its ability to continue. The first is the attitude of the State, which changes from time to time. The other is the heavy load of taxation under which it has succumbed in the past. I am glad that the present Government are doing something to alleviate its problems.
One of the prime difficulties has been the nationalisation processes of the past. The public sector accounts for something like 25 per cent. of the total number of people employed in the United Kingdom and for 27 per cent. of our gross national product. This is detrimental to the survival of the small company, because it works on the assumption that giant concentrations are good in the United Kingdom and the more which are brought into the maw of the State,


the better it will be. I view with some anxiety the recommendations of the AUEW reported in this morning's papers about the nationalisation of the machine tool industry. If that is carried out, I assume that many small companies will go out of business. However perhaps I ought not to dwell on that.
Reference is made in the Motion to the inter-meddling of Governments through the IRC. It has been designed to encourage concentrations, and I regret that the present Government, as a result of Part II of the Industry Bill, seem to be steaming ahead along the same course. It has been argued by one hon. Member that it would be possible partially to nationalise an industry under some of its provisions.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: In this context, has my hon. Friend noticed that the ubiquitous Mr. Charles Villiers has returned to his seat from former pastures?

Mr. Skeet: I have noticed that with some fear and trepidation. I hope that when the Industry Bill goes into Committee those hon. Members who serve on the Committee will be able to do something about Clause 7.
We have seen the work of the IRC, It brought together two companies, Herbert and Ingersoll, and we now find that the new organisation is to be dismembered. It was unsuccessful. It could not sell what it produced. We have also seen the result of the IRC's efforts in connection with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. That, too, has been totally unsuccessful. Therefore it is the attitude of the State which is important at all times.
However, I am encouraged by the attitude of the Minister in response to the recommendations of the Bolton Committee, not merely that there will be a department established, which is now in being but also that an attempt will be made to give every aid and succour to small firms. Certainly they require it.
There is one other trend that we should notice. The glamour attaching to the larger firm is now disappearing. I appreciate that some companies have an optimum size. Some are bigger than others. To a degree, modern technology will

dictate size. But we must not overlook the fact that small companies can get together to form exporting consortia. That has been found possible with petroleum equipment, and Brefcon has been very successful in selling refinery equipment to Brazil. Some consortia of this kind have been very successful in world trade.
When one comes across a glamorous company like Royal Dutch Shell, with a return of only 12 per cent, on its worldwide investments, it is interesting to see how many small firms produce a high return on investment compared with the larger companies.
We also have an indication that some of the bigger mergers have not been successful. Montecatini-Edison is one. In fact, it has been called the sick man of Europe. I have referred already to IRI, which turned out such a huge loss last year. BMC is another. The British nationalised industries are distinguished by the fact that they have enormous debts. They pay very little taxation and from time to time this House has to write off a considerable part of their losses.
It is the duty of the Government to provide an economic climate in which the small firm can operate, in order that it may provide the necessary competition on which our society thrives and provide a spur for the replacement of the larger groups as they decay and ossify. It is also the Government's duty to ensure that bigger firms do not discriminate against smaller companies. When the monopoly legislation is presented to this House, I hope that it will take into account the need to give a certain amount of protection. There is such a thing as a discriminating buyer where a small firm can come off badly. There is also a responsibility for large firms in the private sector not to stultify the efforts of those which might ultimately replace them.
I turn briefly to the subject of taxation. I know that this has been covered very well by several hon. Members, and I pay tribute to the Government's work in accepting four or five of the Bolton Committee's recommendations on taxation. On the other side, there is the problem of inflation. In rather cryptic language. Bolton had this to say:
It would be rash now to act on the assumption that inflation will be brought permanently under control; we think it more


prudent in matters of such critical importance to be prepared for the worst…it may be that we place greater weight than did the Royal Commission on the maintenance of the real capital of businesses. The erosion of the capital base of businesses in general and of small businesses in particular seems to us to have been a major problem for some years and one which is of particular importance at times of rapid inflation such as the present.
When one bears in mind that the £ in 1914 has eroded to 17p today and that companies are paying taxation or capital gains on notional profits, it is scandalous to think that all Governments since the war have not taken these matters into account.
On 9th June, the following letter appeared in The Times:
 So long as a 30 per cent capital gains tax fails to take account of that inflation we are eating into our capital at a rate of three per cent. in each year. That has been so for seven years and it will go on being so until a government accepts that it is wrong to tax gains which have not in fact been made.
It is known as "legal larceny", and it is high time that this Government took account of the fact.
Small companies have small assets. They are building up all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) referred to the fact that sometimes they have to pay capital gains when they least expect to do so, especially in circumstances when they can ill afford to pay them. It may mean the disappearance of a business overnight. This is the crux of the argument for the survival of the small company, and if the Government can do this to assist the small companies they should.
The other point is about capital gains on notional disposals. It has been recommended that assets should be taxed at only 50 per cent., and I agree with that proposal. It is also recommended that a close company should be allowed to be taxed as a partnership, which is the practice in the United States. Pension relief has been covered, and I accept the view that, for the sake of continuity, if, on devolution, a farmer pays only 45 per cent. on agricultural land, it seems a rational argument that the same should apply to the net trading assets of small companies.
I come to the conclusion that if the small business is necessary for the sur-

vival of Britain and for competition inside it there are two ways in which it can be assisted. If these ways are not adopted the small firms will disappear altogether and we shall become a full corporate State not unlike the Soviet Union in which everything is taken over and centralised.
The Government must have the right attitude to the small company. This is vital. On the other front, it is no good passing legislation which puts additional fiscal burdens on the small companies every year. These have to be progressively dismantled to avoid discriminating against the small man who may one day become a captain of industry.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I apologise to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) for not being present when he introduced his Motion. This was due not to any lack of interest in what he might say or any intention on my part to be discourteous but to the fact that I was employed on duties elsewhere in this Palace.
I want to intervene briefly, because I have some responsibility for having set up the Bolton Committee. I have been glad to see its interesting report, I am glad that it is being debated today. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the Government's intentions.
There are a few points which I should like to put to the Minister, and on which he may be prepared to comment, before I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). The hon. Gentleman seems to be living in a dream world, and I am sure that I shall not succeed in waking him up.
The Minister knows about the anxieties in industrial liaison centres and among industrial liaison officers about what the Government intend for their future. This is a form of assistance to small businesses which is valuable, and it has been welcomed by many of them. I know that the Minister has received a number of letters from small businesses about the future of the industrial liaison centres, and I hope that he will say something that will give them some assurance about the future.
I should like to ask the Minister something about the Government's competition


policy, which considerably affects small businesses. We know that the legislation which the Government intended to introduced on this subject has been delayed because of the legislative congestion this Session. I put to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the proposal that although the Bill has had to be delayed he might publish it as an appendix to a White Paper. That seems to be a sensibleidea. It would give the Government an opportunity of indiciating what they intend. The right hon. Gentleman told me that he would seriously consider the proposal, but for some weeks I have heard nothing about it and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me where the matter stands.
I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Bedford that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had introduced a controversial note into the debate by mentioning a State holding company. The hon. Gentleman is obviously worried about the Government's Industry Bill. In fact, he expressed such great worry that I could not understand why he was not present for the Second Reading of the Bill to support his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) who wanted to vote against it That would have been a rather firmer declaration of intention against the Bill than he has expressed by his speech today.
What has happened is that the Government have had to face certain political and economic realities. After all, they nationalised Rolls-Royce—

Mr. Skeet: It is only temporary.

Mr. Dell: —and we had the pathetic spectacle of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) saying that it was curious to find a Conservative Government using nationalisation to restore unprofitable assets to profitability. The question of nationalisation is perhaps not relevant to the debate, but that was a matter for Mr. Deputy Speaker to rule upon and for the hon. Member to decide before he introduced it.
It is possible for the Government to take a sensible attitude towards small businesses—to attempt to give small businesses every type of assistance, and yet to take the practical and reasonable

attitude that in certain cases public ownership can assist in restoring unprofitable assets to profitablity.

Mr. Skeet: If the intention of the Labour Government is to take over a number of small businesses in order to make one large nationalised undertaking, that must be against their interests. That must be detrimental to the small businesses

Mr. Dell: It may be detrimental to the interests of small business, but in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred it might have been in the national interest. As a matter of fact, nationalisation has affected large businesses to a far greater extent than it has affected small businesses. The present Government, who came to office on the basis of all the policies that the hon. Gentleman has been advocating this afternoon, are setting up the Industrial Development Executive and creating for the first time in history the possibility of taking small companies into public ownership without any parliamentary control—because that is what can happen under Part II of the Industry Bill.
That is what the Conservative Government are doing. They obviously think that it is necessary to have the power to do that. If we had introduced a Bill to do that, one can imagine what an outcry there would have been from the CBI and from hon. Gentlemen opposite. How they would have fought a Bill taking power to nationalise small companies without parliamentary control! But now that the Conservative Government are doing it, all that we have are the muffled accents of the hon. Members for Bedford, and South Angus in the Second Reading debate. If the hon. Gentlemen do not appreciate the spectacle that they are making of themselves they have lost all sense of humour. This is the legislation which the Government are passing through the House.
I prefer to operate through instruments which have a continuing responsibility for the results of their actions. That is why I prefer a State holding company to the IRC. Ministers frequently say that I should prefer them to be setting up the IRC, but I want a State holding company. The great advantage of that is that it has that continuing responsibility for the results of its actions. I hope that hon.


Gentlemen opposite will gradually begin to appreciate the distinction in my mind and in the minds of many of my hon. Friends about this proposal which we are making which is a different type of proposal from that of the IRC, although the IRC did valuable work.
The Government are sensible to help small businesses, because they have a valuable part to play in the economy. They have a satisfactory record of innovation and a satisfactory record in adding to the competitiveness of our economy. I therefore believe that the Government are sensible to help small privately-owned businesses.
Of course, the main way of helping small businesses, just as it is the main way of helping business generally, is to have an expanding economy. The trouble, over the last too many years, and over the last two years specifically under this Government—who are so interested in the fate of small businesses—is that we have not been having the sort of economy in which small businesses could thrive. If one is to believe the latest Review of the National Institute, we still will not have that rate of expansion that will enable small businesses to thrive.
While we have this sort of economic situation, with unemployment, redundancies and liquidations among small businesses at present levels, the small business community will not like any Government, even a Conservative Government. The main thing that one looks to the Government for is more practical action to get the economy going.

6.01 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I join many of my hon. Friends in heartily congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond)on enabling us at long last to discuss the Bolton Report. I would rather that we had had a debate long before this in Government time, but it is very satisfactory that my hon. Friend has chosen this subject for debate. We have all benefited enormously from the tone that he imparted to this debate, and this has been followed by several of my hon. Friends.
There is no need to comment on the performance of the Labour Party. They demonstrated when in Government that they were "agin" small businesses and

we would hardly expect to see them here to speak up in their support.
I want to concentrate purely on one aspect—the vital importance of the small business sector of the economy to the health of what are described as the regions, the assisted areas or the development areas. It appals me that successive Governments seem to have shown almost no recognition of the damage that is being done in the development areas by the pressures applied by Government to destroy the identity of private companies, which are often the only ones with their roots in these areas.
I see this in my own constituency. All around there is the contrast between the branch factories that have been brought in by the so-called regional development policies of successive Governments, which wither away at the first breath of recession, whether at home or overseas, and the locally-based private companies which, if they run into problems, may be driven to draw in from activities pursued in other parts of the country or other parts of the world but which have their whole root and being in an area like mine and which provide employment continuity and prosperity through good times and bad.
Appalling damage was done by the last Government to the health of the economy in, for instance, Scotland, by the casual disregard that they consistently paid, year after year, to the interests of the small business sector. I used to think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—who is, I suppose, the epitome of these anti-small business policies, as enshrined in the 1965 Finance Act—might well have been described as the twentieth century "Curse of Scotland"
I am delighted that, in the last two years my right hon. Friends have gone so far to rectify the damage done to small companies, in particular by the 1965 Finance Act. All that I want to do is to draw attention to two of the areas in which I believe that further help is still needed.
The first one I can mention in passing, because it has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram), namely, the effect of the present estate duty system in causing the break-up of private companies and driving them, frequently,


quite inappropriately, into the arms of large multi-national companies with headquarters on the other side of the Atlantic or in the south-eastern corner of Great Britain. We need to work on this. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is now responsible for this sector of the economy, will be banging on the Treasury's door to alleviate this position.
The second matter concerns this year's Finance Bill and the prospect of an increase in corporation tax next year to 50 per cent. That will bear particularly heavily on private, unquoted companies, which rely on their retentions for their capital growth.
A letter from a private company to my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for regional development policies points out that a company might face a bill for an extra £50,000 in taxation next year as a direct result of this, and that that would be equivalent to lost jobs for 15 people.
That is the sort of thing that we are talking about. Again I appeal to my right hon. Friend to use all his influence with the Treasury to get this situation sorted out before this year's Finance Bill leaves the House of Commons. I know that my hon. Friend is now very busy with the Industry Bill in Committee. If he devoted half the attention and expertise that has gone into that Bill to assisting and helping to eliminate the fiscal barriers to the way of progress for the small companies along the lines recommended today he would be doing the interests of regional development far more good than will ever be done by that Bill.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: As I gladly gave up a little of my time to allow a further hon. Member from each side to take part in the debate, I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I jump from point to point to cover what I regard as essential matters. I start by declaring a general industrial interest through the management consultancy work that I undertake.
I was glad to see the welcome that the Bolton Report received from hon. Members opposite. However, they have shown a sad reluctance to attribute the setting up of the Bolton Committee cor-

rectly to the Labour Government. It was of course, set up in July, 1969.
I start rather cryptically by asking a few questions now rather than at the end of my speech, which would leave the Minister very little time to consider his answers. That will give his collective memory, which perches at the end of the Chamber, time to operate. If he cannot answer all the questions now I shall understand, because he has also given up time, but perhaps he will write to me on the various questions that I raise.
On 15th May, in a Written Answer, the Minister issued a list indicating Government action on 25 points under the Bolton Report. Can he say what action the Government have taken or propose to take in relation to Nos. 24 and 25, relating to powers under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) Direction, 1965, and the legal obligation to provide suitable alternative accommodation for displaced firms? I am being very cryptic about the content of those items, but the Minister will know what I am referring to.
Furthermore, in Manchester, a previous Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry invited small firms to write to him indicating what disadvantages they had suffered as a result of restrictive trade practices legislation. It would be interesting to hon. Members to know what response has materialised from that request, what has been the nature of the complaints and what action has been taken, if any.
A previous Under Secretary, replying to the hon. and learned Member for Montogomery (Mr. Hooson) said:
The Bolton Committee recommended that we should promote policies designed to maximise competitive participation by small firms in suitable Government contracts. We are considering how best to give effect to the recommendation in consultation with the Treasury and the major contracting departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1972: Vol. 830, c. 245.]
In terms of the spending of public money, it is highly important that we should know what has been done about this and what safeguards are being built in in any action. I am not complaining that action should be taken. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to know that adequate safeguards are built into any


system which eventually emerges to ensure proper value for public money in the ultimate scheme.
I move very rapidly to the question of training and the supply of skilled workers in relation to small firms. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that a ready supply of skilled labour is as essential to small firms as it is to large firms. One of the big constraints of many small firms when we have had our periods of "go" in the economy postwar—and I am not speaking of any particular political party—is that the small firms have found it particularly difficult to attract skilled labour and have been disadvantaged in being outbid by large firms. Therefore, it is essential that a viable training system should be in existence. There is widespread concern at the possible implications of the Bolton Committee's training recommendations. The engineering industry, for example, has set up group training schemes to help small firms. At present three quarters of a million workers are covered by these schemes. Whereas in 1965 there were only 76 such schemes, there are now 171. In 1965, 850 firms were covered by them; now 4,500 are covered. I give the figures purely to demonstrate the rate of build up that has occurred as a result of the present training regulations. Forty per cent. of all engineering firms with between 25 and 250 workers are members of group training schemes. It is felt by the Engineering Industry Training Board that more could benefit; yet Bolton, the C.B.I. and apparently, from their discussion document, the Government want small firms exempt—in effect, that is what it will mean—from a grant-levy system. As the Engineering Industry Training Board points out in paragraph 11 of appendix 6 of its submission to the Government, it can hardly be blamed for any increases in costs because half the increase in costs per head per trainee has been due to inflation. Yet during this time it has managed to reduce the levy from 2½ per cent. to 1¾ per cent, with the possibility of further reductions in future if the Government agree to keep the present system.
But if the Government abandon the grant-levy system, this could be disastrous for small firms because it will mean the death blow for most group training schemes. No one would

seriously suggest that this would be in the long-term interests of small firms. A recent survey undertaken for the Engineering Industry Training Board indicated that up to 50 per cent. of its membership would leave group training schemes if the grant-levy system was scrapped. When asked if they would be willing to pay higher fees in order to keep training schemes in existence, 40 per cent. said that if the fees rose they would leave. So a double blow could be struck at the training system within the engineering industry if the Government persist in the policy outlined in their document.
It must be stressed that all this is to enable a few small employers to escape from the duty to the future of their industry and to "leech" parasitically on the training efforts of the companies which are dealing with their needs.

Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Williams: No. The hon. Gentleman would not give way to me, and I have little time.
The Government justify their proposals by discovering:
A major change in the attitude of a large section of British industry to systematic training.
This is hardly borne out by the two surveys I have quoted, nor by page 6 of the Engineering Industry Training Board report, in which it is stated that
In the last difficult year when employment in the industry has declined by 5 per cent., the training effort has decreased by as much as 20 per cent.
The Board concludes that if the grant-levy system is abandoned, in training terms the industry
would revert to the situation which existed before the 1964 Act.
This must be a serious warning to the Government, to the industry and to small firms. It is echoed in the submissions to the Government by other boards, for instance, the Distributive Industry Training Board, and representations on behalf of the road transport industry from a national advisory committee representing 2,800 small firms, the people who are supposed, according to Bolton, to favour abolition of the grant-levy system.
The Government should recognise that, in the medium and certainly in the long term, it would be the falsest of all false economies to try to save on training. It would be a false economy not just for large firms but also for small firms.
I refer briefly to criticisms made about the statistical and administrative costs of small firms. One recognises the difficulties this can impose on a very small firm which is confronted with highly technical statistical forms and materials. It is understandably a source of aggravation. We would agree that any such documentation should always be judged by the criterion of relevancy. I should have thought that this is axiomatic, anyhow. But whether relevancy will necessarily mean an overall reduction in the amount of paperwork remains to be seen. While some will be eradicated by a closer scrutiny, it may be that others are needed.
In January, the CBI, in its Smaller Firms Bulletin, expressed doubt about the possibility of a division within the Department of Trade and Industry monitoring the position properly, and having an ability to recognise danger signals when they appear. What is the monitoring system? How will it operate? How soon will it identify danger signals? What danger signals is it looking for? Finally, if it is to work effectively, will it mean less or more statistical data being required from small firms?
Bolton also recommended that all statutory barriers to the passage of information between Government Departments should be demolished where possible. I see this as potentially a highly dangerous recommendation. It may reduce the reliability of returns if businesses and, indeed, individuals think that their returns will be less confidential than they were hitherto and that the returns sent to one department can be transferred to another. I should have thought that this is a very sensitive area of public interest as well as of business interest. It is a delicate balance between simplicity of method and confidentiality. The Government would be wise to err on the side of confidentiality rather than simplicity, instead of risking doubt in the public mind about the confidentiality of governmental returns just to save a relatively small amount of effort for small firms.
Value added tax will not be exactly the greatest administrative boon that has been imposed upon small companies. It is to be collected on an invoice basis from companies with an annual taxable turn-over in excess of £5,000. Hon. Members may say, "Some can avoid this by not registering". But let us look at the warning given by the CBI in January to its members:
The chief disadvantage arising from not registering is that the unregistered firm still has to pay the tax to its suppliers but is not in a position to reclaim the tax because it does not have an account with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; it cannot raise a tax invoice because it is exempt. The only way it can recoup is by increasing the price of its own goods.
For this reason it is probable that a registered firm will prefer to deal with another registered firm rather than with an unregistered one. In dealing with an unregistered one, it may feel that it is paying a hidden tax, the amount of which cannot be accurately ascertained and cannot be reclaimed from Customs.
This is a point of legitimate criticism. So the Government's concession to the small firm is seen to be a mirage. It may not be in the small firm's interest to take this concession. It may be better for it to incur unnecessary and legally non-required administrative costs to avoid the serious disadvantage the CBI has envisaged.
Reference has been made, quite rightly, to liquidity. Hon. Gentlemen have recognised that sometimes the problems which face small firms arise through their own ignorance of the possible source of funds. Also there is the fact that sometimes other companies do not behave ethically to the small businessman.
There is an interesting item in the Guardian of 6th April in which Mr. Tibby, the Managing Director of Triplan Interstructures, Salford, points out that many small building firms have to wait two years or more for final settlement of their accounts. In particular, he specifies that large companies can be guilty of this imposition upon their smaller colleagues.
The liquidity problem has been worsened by the Government's abandonment of investment grants. That was particularly harmful in the small business sector where there was growth. The Bolton Committee referred to this sector as being a seedbed for growth firms. It is the firm which had been growing which


had been ploughing back, which was hit by the abandonment of investment grants. Similarly, these firms will be hurt by the eventual removal of REP, which can only worsen cash flow. The 50 per cent. corporation tax means that companies with profits over £15,000, not large companies but probably those which are emerging as the growth firms in this sector, will next year pay 25 per cent. more tax than they are paying this year. Even the smaller companies which will allegedly receive a concession will still be paying the same amount of tax next year on retained profits.
It was said that I misunderstood the point. I did not. The hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram) referred to retention. That is what I am referring to. Small firms get no concession on retained profits because they will pay the same amount of tax on them next year as they will this year.
Undoubtedly the greatest problem facing the small firm regarding liquidity is the Government's utter inability to tackle the problem of inflation. I have not time to go into the particular accounting difficulties that this may represent to small firms of which many hon. Gentlemen are aware. If one had to pinpoint any overriding requirement, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), in a speech with which I otherwise completely disagreed, made exactly the right point when he referred to the correct economic environment. What is most urgently needed for the small firm that recognises and deals with the various administrative obstacles is a sound and buoyant economy.
What success story can the Government claim? Bankruptcies are at too high a level. There have been a record number of factory closures. I refer to a parliamentary Answer I received on 6th June of this year: 1,052 manufacturing establishments, many of them small, closed last year. That is 25 per cent. more than in our last year of office. Coincidentally, two and a half times as many workers were made redundant last year as in 1969.
These figures throw into a somewhat different perspective the statement of a previous Under-Secretary who at the Manchester conference said:
It is an indictment of past policies that the small firms should have been so dis-

couraged that there are not more of them, employing more people in existence today.
If it was not for the economic folly of the Government there would be more of them employing more people today, as the figures provided by the Government on closures last year clearly demonstrate.
The Government came to office with a secure balance of payments and no inhibition on controlled growth. However, they could not resist doctrinaire self-indulgence. They destroyed confidence in business at a stroke. That is about the only thing they did at a stroke. They announced the scrapping of investment grants as soon as they came to office, without waiting for the result of the cost/benefit study. They announced the ending of REP and declared their "lame duck" policy. Two years ago the Prime Minister marched them up to the top of the hill and in the last couple of weeks he has marched them down again. In doing so he has tried not to look at the casualties on which they have had to march on their return journey: factory closures and bankruptcies large and small and the massive unnecessary increase in unemployment.
The Government are in a mess of their own making. Unfortunately, we will all have to pay—large firms, small firms, workers and consumers. The Government have frittered away the balance of payment surplus so ludicrously and unnecessarily that it is now open speculation in the newspapers not whether there will be devaluation but when the next devaluation will take place. Devaluation is made more likely by the irresponsible comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech that his commitment to devaluation is future policy.
Next year we will open our domestic market to Common Market competition. We will start by seeing the capital movements. We will be on the verge of another period of stop. No one can pretend, not even the Government, that more stop will help the small firms.

6.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): Perhaps we can now return to the subject matter that we are debating today.
First, I join in the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member


for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), on raising this important subject. I am bound to say that whereas it is true it was the previous Government which commissioned the Bolton Report in 1969, much of the thinking and initiative behind it stems from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), whose initiative and enthusiasm on this subject jogged the Government and all of us into thinking about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and other hon. Members will be interested to note that in the debate which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East initiated in 1967, the Opposition had to be ticked off for not contributing. I suppose that there is some improvement, in that there have been two speeches from the Opposition back benches. We are glad to hear the contributions that have been made.
I add my tribute to those that have been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who was the first Minister with responsibility for small firms. My hon. Friend, whom I know as well as, if not better than, anybody, was responsible for much of the initial work. What he did is very much appreciated by all those concerned in the Department of Trade and Industry, and myself.
It is disturbing how many people, even small firms, are still not aware of the work of the Bolton Committee and the action which the Government have taken to improve the environment for small firms. Small firms are in no sense a minority or specialised subject. They are a vital economic concern and, as my hon. Friend's Motion implies, their future affects everyone.
I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about the two firms in his constituency—Silicone Fabrications Ltd. and Hird-Brown Ltd.—which seem to be doing extremely well. I confirm that I have had an interesting letter from him about BYC Engineers, Ltd., which I shall study and reply to in due course.
I join my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in paying tribute to the Bolton Committee for giving us the first complete and thorough study of small firms and the first analysis of the structure of

this sector. The report is by no means solely directed to the Government. It provides a useful reference book for the owners and managers of small firms and for all those who are concerned with their well-being. It indicates areas of potential weakness, lists and examines the availability and effectiveness of non-Government services, and gives an extremely useful account of sources of finance for those firms which have difficulty in obtaining it.
The report reveals for the first time the size and importance of this sector—1¼ million firms, representing 20 per cent, of our gross national product, employing more people than the whole of the public sector and responsible for one-third of the employment in this country. The report also identifies the distinctive contribution that small firms make to the economy as suppliers of services, subcontractors, manufacturers of components and the main producers in many spheres.
The Committee's research has shown that small firms are no less efficient than their larger competitors in the use of resources, that they are profitable, and that they are capable of making an important contribution to innovation. But their importance cannot be gauged solely from their direct contribution to national output. As the Committee pointed out, small firms are a vital stimulus to competition—
the cutting edge of our industrial initiative
and have a major value as a "seedbed", which has been mentioned elsewhere, for new companies to grow and challenge the established leaders.
The Committee rightly drew attention to the social contribution that small businessmen make to the local community. We all know of the work done in our constituencies by chambers of commerce, rotary clubs, and voluntary effort which so often goes unrecognised.
I am fully aware that small firms generally are still suspicious and believe that all Governments are concerned only with large companies. Therefore, I must stress that this Government, unlike the Labour Government, have no bias against small firms; indeed, small firms represent just the kind of initiative that we wish to encourage. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) illustrated


this point extremely well. We are determined that small firms should be allowed to flourish and thrive in the freest possible environment, unhampered by unnecessary restrictions and unintentional discrimination.
The extent to which the Government had already taken action before the Bolton Committee Report in a number of ways that were of benefit to small firms is possibly unrecognised.
Early in 1971, we reduced corporation tax and income tax to give greater incentives to initiative; we raised the limit of exemption on estate duty and introduced payment by instalments, and the industrial training boards were urged to exempt more small firms from the levy grant. It is also fair to point out that small firms will benefit as much as anyone from the Government's proposed measures to stimulate demand and investment, which were announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Budget and which are now before Parliament in the Finance Bill and the Industry Bill.
he steps that we have taken—in particular, the work that we have accomplished since publication of the report—are a firm demonstration of our concern for the welfare of this sector. We believe that these efforts will be recognised and form the basis of a better understanding between the Government and small firms.
The Committee found that there had been a decline in the number of small firms over recent years. To some extent this was because of technological advances and increases in economies of scale in production and marketing. Nevertheless, this decline was a cause for concern, as the Committee recognised, because it is no good having huge trees in the forest if the undergrowth becomes sterile. That is precisely what has been happening in recent years.
I stress that the Committee did not conclude that small firms were in imminent danger of extinction. Indeed, it affirmed the basic strength and competitiveness of the sector, given a fair chance. That is and will be our intention, so long as I am the Minister responsible for small firms. I see my main task as ensuring that the interests of small firms

are given their due weight at all levels of Government. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) that I heed carefully what he said. I am prepared to knock at the Chancellor's door on the points that he has raised. In this sense, I consider that I am the Government's advocate of small firms. I have made it my immediate priority to see that all the Bolton Committee's recommendations are fully and properly considered and that this is done as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) urged me to get out and meet these organisations and small firms as much as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough highlighted the difficulty of communication. I accept this, but I assure my hon. Friends that I have already had several meetings for this purpose, as have the enthusiastic officials in the small firms division that we have set up. In the relatively short time since I accepted these new responsibilities I have managed to meet a widely representative section of those concerned with small firms and have received some extremely helpful advice and guidance in this respect from various parts of the country, including assisted and non-assisted areas.
The task of the small firms division within the Department is to act as the focal point within the Government for the interests of small firms. At this stage we have been most concerned with the outstanding problems posed by the Bolton Report. The House will probably accept from answers that I have given to Questions, that the Government have reacted speedily to most of the recommendations. I intend to see that substantial progress on the remaining items is effected before the end of the summer.
Several of my hon. Friends raised the question of taxation. The House will be aware that in his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid careful attention to the problems of small firms. In particular, he had special regard to their need to retain a high proportion of profits for investment. Without going into details in the short time at my disposal, I should point out that companies with net profits below £25,000 will qualify for relief from the full rate of tax when the new system of corporation tax is introduced. That


means that 90 per cent. of companies—no small proportion—will benefit from this proposal.
Hon. Members will also recall that changes were proposed to the provisions about shortfall assessments and the treatment of close companies. These proposals will have the effect of exempting completely 80 per cent. of those companies which were potentially liable to shortfall in 1970.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram) referred to the problem of estate duty, which is a major source of concern for many small firms. I believe that the Chancellor's proposals for a review on the basis of the Green Paper on Inheritance Tax will be particularly welcome, as will the other concessions that have been given in this and previous Budgets.
A further item—the restoration of tax relief on loan interest—will meet a specific recommendation of the Bolton Committee. Finally, although the Committee mentioned it in passing rather than making it a main recommendation, the countrywide experience of free depreciation on plant and machinery should have a particular significance for small firms, since it will allow the writing off of the full current cost of replacing assets and hence automatically adjust their accounts for the effects of inflation.
Again, we have largely followed the recommendation of the Bolton Committee that there should be greater flexibility in the matter of industrial development certificates. We substantially accept the Bolton Committee's recommendations on statistical form filling. I assure the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) that the question of confidentiality is recognised as an important one and that in anything we do there is no intention of departing from the strict standards of confidentiality that have been enjoyed for so many years.
The hon. Member invited me to answer his other points in writing. As I have not time to deal with them now, I shall certainly do so.
A matter that has been raised by a number of hon. Members and which is still an outstanding point under the Bolton Committee is the question of the small firms advisory bureau. We have

carried out a wide process of consultation on this recommendation. We have approached the question of an advisory service with an entirely open mind. There is a clear difference of view among outside bodies on the need for such a service, and what should be provided. Our attention has been drawn to the chambers of commerce, the banks and the many sources of advice that are available, including the chamber of commerce of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West and others.
We must take into account the future of the Industrial Liaison Centre Service. I assure the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) that that is being done. If there is a measure of agreement in this field it is that small firms need to know where to find management advice, particularly on finance, as much as technical help or help with production problems.
In addition to all these aspects, we shall have to take into account the manpower and the cost implications of the Bolton Committee's proposals. We shall certainly reach a decision on this important matter as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the European Economic Community study upon which we are embarked. It is now well in progress. Our objective is to identify how entry into the EEC will affect small firms. We cannot do small firms' work for them in this respect but we shall be considering how much information and advice they need. Much information is already available from the EEC/EFTA information unit of the Department of Trade and Industry, and from trade associations, the Confederation of British Industry and chambers of commerce.
In collaboration with the Treasury and the main purchasing Departments we are undertaking a study of obstacles which small firms may encounter in competing for Government contracts. This is an area in which we have invited small firms to tell us of their experience and problems.
I apologise if I have not dealt with every point that has been raised, but hon. Members may rest assured that every point that they have made will be noted carefully by the DTI's small firms division and myself.
The Bolton Report is not the end but only the beginning of our concern for small firms. We intend to keep a close watch on their health and they will continue to find in me a sympathetic ear for their problems and needs. There is still much that we do not know about this vital sector. I would never pretend to anyone in the small firm sector that, as some hon. Members seemed to expect, they will automatically experience fewer bankruptcies. I cannot possibly promise that, nor do I believe that that would be the wish of small firms. I do not believe that small firms wish to be wrapped up for ever in a mass of cotton wool. They want to be freed from the chains and shackles that have been binding them for far too long. That is the spirit with which I approach my task.
The Motion calls upon us
in the national interest, to continue to stimulate and encourage the prosperity and growth of this energetic and enterprising section of the community.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do this with sincerity and enthusiasm.

Mr. Redmond: Although I believe that I have the right of reply, I do not propose to exercise it, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend the Under-secretary for his reply, and I thank other hon. Members for taking part in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the positive steps taken by Her Majesty's Government to remove many of the difficulties which have faced small businesses and of the recognition given to their important contribution to Great Britain's economy; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government, in the national interest, to continue to stimulate and encourage the prosperity and growth of this energetic and enterprising section of the community.

ANIMAL WELFARE

6.46 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I beg to move,
That this House, in view of the fact that investigators of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have evidence that the Balfour Assurances on the export of live animals for slaughter are not being strictly enforced, urges Her Majesty's Government to make strong representations to the governments of the countries concerned, and to consider restricting such exports to meat in carcase form.
I am grateful to the House for allowing me a quarter of an hour of this Private Member's time in which to present my Motion.
As I understand the position, the Balfour assurances concerning the export of live animals to the continent concerned cattle, sheep and pigs destined for immediate slaughter abroad. The assurances are that the animals must be rested and inspected before embarkation, that they are exported only to countries giving assurances that the journey after landing abroad will not exceed 100 kilometres, that the animals will not be re-exported from those countries, and that they will be humanely slaughtered.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has evidence that these assurances are not being kept by Belgium. Between 23rd March and 1st April this year and also between 17th April and 22nd April this year teams of investigators from the RSPCA and from the International Association for the Protection of Animals visited Belgium and France and watched English sheep being landed at Ostend from the motor vessel "Bontikoe". The investigators watched the sheep being taken by lorry to the French frontier at a place called Wadelincourt 128 kilometres from Ostend. That in itself was a breach of the assurances, because 128 kilometres is more than the 100 kilometres allowed. The investigators then watched the sheep being driven into France—namely, re-exported from Belgium, which is a violation of the assurances.
The investigators saw one load being driven to Dieppe, where they were slaughtered in the slaughterhouse. They saw another lorry load being driven to Marseilles. The investigators followed the lorry all the way to Marseilles, where


it went into the abattoir and where again the sheep were slaughtered. It is believed that some consignments of sheep driven to Marseilles from Ostend were loaded on to ships and sent to North Africa or even to Greece.
Other teams of investigators found sheep from England in abattoirs at Sisteron and Digne in the South-East of France. The management of the abattoirs admitted that the sheep were bought regularly at Banbury market in England and exported to Ostend and from there driven to Sisteron and Digne by lorry. So there was a free admission of a violation of the assurances, at least by the Belgians, if not by the French, because I understand the assurances as far as the French are concerned apply only to bovines and not to sheep. They saw that no food or water was given to the sheep en route because the customs seals on the lorries were not broken throughout the journey and no one could therefore get in. It was cold at that time of the year, especially at night, and the sheep had been shorn recently. One team observed that they looked miserable and distressed. In one consignment one sheep was found to be dead on arrival and in another one sheep had to be lifted out of the lorry. Clearly they must have suffered as they sped down the French autoroutes at over 60 mph on cold nights without having been fed.
At the Sisteron abattoir it was admitted that between 1st January and 16th April no fewer than 8,641 sheep had been imported from England and slaughtered in that abattoir by having their throats cut without pre-stunning. Apparently equipment for electro-narcosis was installed but it had never been used, in spite of an order from the French Ministry of Agriculture that it should have been used after April 1971, and in spite of a notice to that effect in the main slaughter hall. Apparently no notice was taken of it.
It seems quite clear that some people concerned with this trade, at any rate in some slaughterhouses, and some exporters either do not know or not not care about how these animals are treated after they are exported from this country. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister of State can give an account of what is being done to prevent these breaches of

the Balfour assurances, or if steps to stop these breaches are not taken by the Government concerned, I hope the British Government will do so by banning the export of live animals to those countries which either cannot or will not honour the assurances.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State will probably know, I have a very close association with the RSPCA as its vice-chairman. He knows too that I have a very great interest in the welfare of animals and I think he will agree that I am not fanatical in these matters. I realise that farm animals are bred for the benefit they can bring to human beings.
There are one or two points I should like to emphasise. My hon. Friend must realise that this investigation by the RSPCA was under the control of their chief veterinary officer. This is very important. It was not run by a bunch of fanatics who do not understand the general welfare of animals. The report was drawn up by the veterinary officer, Mr. Brown. I think that the Department's officers have been in touch with Mr. Brown and will realise that he is a very responsible man, not given to exaggeration. My hon. Friend the Minister of State can take it from me that this is a true and factual report of what happened and it is quite horrifying. I hope he will agree today that steps must be taken to bring this unpleasant traffic to an end.

6.55 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I should like to thank both my hon. Friends for what they have said and for giving me a chance to say something which I hope will reassure them about the episodes which have been mentioned this afternoon. As time is short I shall come right to the point and put on record my thanks to the RSPCA and its inspectors for the report which they have prepared. I have been on record on several occasions in this House asking for evidence in order that we can act, and I am most grateful to the RSPCA for the report. It is a well-prepared document which describes how the Society kept a careful eye on certain consignments of sheep exported recently to Belgium for immediate slaughter.
It reports that instead of being slaughtered in an abattoir within 100 kilometres of landing at Ostende the sheep were forwarded on to France. It describes and criticises the conditions during the journey by road in France and the methods of slaughter. It refers to hearsay evidence that some sheep from Britain had been shipped through Belgium and France to North Africa, thereto be killed by inhumane methods and that others were sent on from Belgium to Greece.
I accept that the RSPCA's efforts, which it has performed with the zeal and diligence one would expect of it, have revealed a serious loophole in the Balfour arrangements as they apply in Belgium. This is a loophole we intend to close. It is there because sheep exported from this country for immediate slaughter are not coverd by documents which have to be produced to the authorities abroad to establish that the animals are for slaughter. The Belgian authorities assure us that they apply the Balfour assurances to all sheep declared to them by the importer as being animals for slaughter but, of course, they do not apply them to other sheep.
This means that the Belgians merely ask the importer what the sheep are intended for. They do not ask to see the documents. We have taken this up with the Belgian authorities and we are discussing urgently ways and means to remedy this defect in our arrangements. It is a loop-hole and I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to put this on the record this afternoon. He has referred to Sisteron, Digne and Marseilles, and there is certainly very strong evidence that British sheep were at Marseilles. There is no question from the report that they were at the other abattoirs as well. Undoubtedly they should not have been there if they had left the United Kingdom, as declared on this side, for immediate slaughter.
It is a loop-hole which we must stop up. The House has expressed an anxiety which is a virtue in the welfare of animals, because animal welfare is a subject over which the House is deeply and

very properly concerned. As a practising farmer, like my two colleagues in the Department, I share the feeling. But the anxiety is about the welfare of animals outside this country where we cannot control things in the way we can control them here. We have the problems of transport in this country. Sheep often travel long distances from, say, the north of Scotland down to Devonshire. The distances may well be far greater than 100 kilometres, but the great thing is that we can at every stage keep an eye on whether the sheep are being adequately watered and fed, and we have rigorous inspections of slaughtering, whereas abroad we are in difficulties.
That is why the Balfour Assurances exist at all. They resulted in 1957 from the inquiry headed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. They were devised to do the very thing we want to do, to protect the animals we export for immediate slaughter. They are bilateral undertakings freely—

It being Seven o'clock, Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government Business).

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1972.
2. Civil Evidence Act, 1972.
3. Sound Broadcasting Act, 1972.
4. Oxfordshire and District Water Board Act, 1972.
5. Solihull Corporation Act, 1972
6. Reigate Congregational Church Act, 1972.
7. Whitley Bay Pier (Extension of Time) Act, 1972.
8. Congregational Chapel and Trust Property Deptford Act, 1972

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

7.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I welcome this debate, because it enables me to put before the House, to which I am answerable, my views, my hopes and my very real anxieties about the serious problem of Northern Ireland.
I have never tried to minimise the dangers of the present wave of violence and lawlessness which has continued for three years. It is small wonder that the large majority of law-abiding citizens, both Protestant and Catholic, are thoroughly fed up, bitter and frustrated.
To say that is not to say that we have no progress to report, as I think I can demonstrate by an outline of our policy and what we have achieved in the 10 weeks which have passed since the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act became law and the Government here at Westminster were entrusted by Parliament with direct responsibility for administration in Northern Ireland.
I will come later to the serious events of this last weekend. First, I want to tell the House of the aims of Her Majesty's Government's policy, the progress we have made, and our hopes for the future.
In the 10 weeks of direct rule, I have tried, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to reassure the majority community that they will not against their will be forced out of the United Kingdom and into a Republic of All Ireland; to reassure the minority community that they can count on equal rights and equal opportunities with other citizens of the United Kingdom; to end civil disobedience and sectarian violence and to show the leaders and as many as possible of the people of all shades of opinion that these are our aims; and to bring work to the unemployed and to bring social reconstruction to the depressed and damaged areas of the towns and cities of Northern Ireland.
But 10 weeks is too short a time to do more than make a start, too short a time to wipe out the bitterness of

hundreds of years of recurring violence. Equally, I appreciate that time is one of the commodities which is not available in Northern Ireland.
In setting out to reassure the majority that they would not be forced out of the United Kingdom against their will, I recognise that we had to contend with a great feeling of shock, and in some cases of being let down, amongst many loyal, peaceful and responsible people in Northern Ireland, for whom the continued existence for many years of their own Parliament and Government has been a symbol and a focus of their firm feelings of independence and of belonging, under the Crown, to the United Kingdom. We were well aware that the suspension of Stormont was bound to disturb some, without satisfying others. To those people I say now, "The British Government and the British House of Commons will not betray you. Our troops and our money are eloquent testimony of our concern for you as citizens of the United Kingdom." I say this with great emphasis because fear and rumour play so great a part in the Northern Ireland scene. If only my reassurance, on behalf of the British Government, about the right of the people of Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom, if that is the wish of the majority, were believed, it would do much to calm the fears and anxieties of many law-abiding and peaceful people.
I am grateful indeed to those right hon. and hon. Members who have privately and publicly reinforced these assurances during their visits to Northern Ireland. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members who speak publicly or privately in Northern Ireland will feel able to do the same.
I must warn those in the majority of the population who feel frustrated that actions like those of last weekend play straight into the hands of the IRA, which is then able to portray itself as the protector of the Catholic community and in that way to delay the end of violence, the goal which they and all the rest are aiming to achieve.
My reassurances to the minority have won a good measure of acceptance. I do not ask the House merely to take my word on this, but to look at the facts and the progress. The Official IRA


has proclaimed a ceasefire, a development which I believe has been underrated. The SDLP has felt able to make two helpful statements. In Andersons-town and in the Bogside and Creggan, where people have signed petitions in their tens of thousands, there is a strong and clear demand for peace. There is encouragement to be found in events south of the Border too, where Mr. Lynch has been able to move against the IRA by setting up special courts.
But though I am glad to see these signs that my assurances to the minority have been listened to, it is not enough for them just to make declarations and sign petitions, desirable though these things are. These peaceful forces must now display in a positive sense the strength of their members, not to ask but to insist on a cessation of the banditry in their midst.
In relation to our aim of bringing an end to lawlessness and sectarian violence I recognise that there is deep disquiet, both in this House and in Northern Ireland in particular about the situation in the Bogside-Creggan area of Londonderry. This is a part of Northern Ireland, and so of the United Kingdom, which has not been under the fully effective control of lawful authority for a considerable time. It is, in the most exact sense of that word, an intolerable situation—and amongst those who are unable to tolerate it are tens of thousands of people who live under IRA dominance there and whose wish to be free of it becomes clearer every day.
Lawful authority must be and will be restored in those areas. We do not intend to allow a part of the United Kingdom, enjoying by virtue of its membership many benefits conferred by the State, to default from its obligations and exclude the rule of law at the behest and under the duress of a ruthless conspiracy.
Of course, a short-term change in this situation could be brought about by an equally ruthless use of force on our part. We have in full measure the means and the capacity to sweep these barricades aside and establish the security forces within these areas in overwhelming strength. But I have avoided, and my colleagues and I will continue to avoid, this course, not out of weakness or a desire to appease, but because our aim

is not to conquer or occupy the city but to bring it back permanently and with as little rancour as possible, into a peaceful and orderly state.
But time is not limitless. Londonderry is not a place in isolation and the disrespect for law rooted there tends to spread like a cancer to other places and other communities. No one will say that I have shown myself to be impatient, because I appreciate the immense difficulties. I want the people of the Bogside and Creggan to create a real free Derry, free from the constant fear of violence which blights their lives. In any event, I will certainly take the sternest measures to stop the spread of the cancer of lawlessness elsewhere.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On this point, there is at times great confusion in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Army does go daily into the Bogside area, where it maintains a post, and that before direct rule there had been Army sweeps into the area? Will he confirm that what is meant by a "no-go area" in the sense that he is talking about is that the police are not operating within that area, which we all want to see opened up? Will he confirm that what I have said is roughly true?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, what the hon. Gentleman has said is roughly true. He has been there, and I know that he appreciates it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that while, in a measure, what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has said is correct, at night and especially at weekends there are barricades, that men are protecting those barricades, and that on such occasions the Army does not go in?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Army still goes in to particular posts in the area, but again I must accept partly what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said.
I have, of course, had many people coming to me about the problems in Northern Ireland. They have spoken quite passionately about their dislike of the situation, but the vast majority of them at the same time do not advocate a


complete and total military solution, because they realise some of the issues involved, not for this year or next year, but for many years ahead in the history of Northern Ireland.
An important part of the organised lawlessness is the withholding of payments for rent, rates, electricity and so on. I must say to those who recognise the need to end the lawlessness that this campaign of civil disobedience is not merely irrelevant but is deeply offensive to those very many honest and law-abiding citizens who have continued to pay, not only that they might enjoy these services themselves, but in support of their enjoyment by others. Here is a way by which those who wish for peace can personally demonstrate their personal contribution to its achievement. They can end this campaign now.
I have said that the fourth of our aims was to bring work to the unemployed and to bring social reconstruction to the depressed and damaged areas. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with some of the very substantial measures we have taken and are taking in the economic field when he replies to the debate. This vital work goes on, some of it undramatic, perhaps even dull, compared with the insistent problems of order and security. Nevertheless, it is a vital feature in bringing the violence to an end.

Mr. John Wilkinson: As military security is such a prerequisite to any political settlement or improvement, can my right hon. Friend tell me quite frankly and truthfully whether the military situation is at this time improving or not?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am coming to discuss the military situation very quickly—indeed, almost immediately, because I shall now refer to the events of last weekend, which naturally are uppermost in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members, as they are in mine.
I spent the day yesterday with the Army, both on the Border and in the most difficult areas of Belfast, where it was engaged in dealing with the disorders of which hon. Members will have heard. Over the weekend, there have been in Northern Ireland nearly 200 shooting incidents and a number of ex-

plosions. Three members of the security forces were killed and three wounded; one civilian was killed and nine wounded, not counting the casualties which the Army believes the gunmen to have sustained. During the weekend the Ulster Defence Association erected barricades throughout the Protestant areas of Belfast. As a result of these barricades, there were some clashes with the security forces, particularly in East Belfast, and a heightening of sectarian tension throughout the city.
Yesterday afternoon, shooting took place on the edge of the Ardoyne, during which a man was shot dead. The security forces, which were quickly on the scene, came under fire from various parts of the Bone and from within the Ardoyne. A number of engagements took place up to about 9.30, with some further sporadic shooting later in the night. During this period, some 1,500 rounds were fired by gunmen at security forces, who fired 400 rounds back. Two further civilians were killed in these engagements and a soldier was killed and one injured. The Army then conducted a search operation in houses in the Bone and collected eight weapons and over 100 rounds of ammunition. Four people were arrested.
I must take this opportunity to pay the highest possible tribute to the General Officer Commanding, General Sir Harry Tuzo, and all the troops under his command, including the Ulster Defence Regiment, for their immense courage and dedication to duty in an extremely difficult task. The job of any Army in such circumstances is bound to be of the utmost difficulty, and one can only thank them for their complete loyalty and self-sacrifice in the task of helping all the people in Northern Ireland. These operations have also placed a very considerable strain on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose loyalty and dedication to duty in the face of calumny and danger I continue to admire.
I must make it clear to the House that Her Majesty's Government are absolutely determined to deploy the forces at their command in whatever strength is required to maintain law and order and to deter terrorism. It has been decided in the light of this that some further strengthening of the military forces in Northern Ireland is needed, and a further battalion is to be dispatched forthwith.
One of the darkest features in the political landscape was internment. We were determined to bring internment to an end as soon as the security situation justified it. But there is a balance to be struck on this matter. On the one hand, no one would wish to retain internment, which is a repugnant measure, for a moment longer than necessary. On the other hand, I must not forget that I am responsible for law and order, and there are some who cannot be released until the security situation permits.
I know that this House is very rightly apprehensive lest men whom I let out should return to the violent ranks of the IRA. This risk is one of the many I have to take into account. I accept that it does exist, although I do not accept some of the reports and accusations which are put about on the actions of those internees I have released. I must simply bear this particular risk in mind in selecting internees for release. I can only say, as I have often said, that if violence ends then internment can end, too.
The law, of course, takes its toll of terrorists as well, and there is much to be said to the credit of the security forces, since, by the very nature of their activities, the terrorists are elusive. They choose the moment and place of their attacks. This does not make for easy prevention or arrest. Attacks are often random. By a terrorist's perverted logic, any death aids his cause and damage is its own justification.
Nevertheless, not all the terrorists are escaping from the law. For example, in May, 23 persons were found guilty by juries of terrorist offences and 13 others pleaded guilty. The courts, too, impose severe sentences. On 3rd June two men were sentenced to 10 years for offences connected with explosives; on 8th June a man received seven years for a similar offence. Three men found guilty of assaulting Mrs. McGucken received sentences of four years' imprisonment. It can be seen therefore, that the efforts of the security forces in pursuing the terrorists, both in bringing them forward and in many instances in reacting strongly against them, have brought substantial results.
I have constantly told the House that the British Government will not be deterred from their basic task of promoting reconciliation and peace in Northern Ire-

land. Despite all the difficulties, there is now a real hope and opportunity for the future. I note now an increasing desire expressed by many different parties and individuals for the people of Northern Ireland to sit down together and to discuss how a fair settlement can be worked out which guarantees the peace and rights of individuals throughout the community. The British Government greatly welcome this desire.
It is certainly our wish that the people of Northern Ireland should express their views about their own future. I believe that they have a clear choice: to go on with sterile and futile violence or to sit around a table and to discuss. By the choice made the world will judge Northern Ireland and those who choose one or the other course. Nor can those in Northern Ireland who are in any position to lead in any quarter escape from their responsibility to their own followers and to the whole community.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: This is an extremely short debate and I intend to confine myself to a few short practical suggestions which may assist the general situation. The House will know that I was one of a delegation which recently visted the Six Counties, and I would like publicly to thank all those in both communities in Northern Ireland who made that visit one of the most informative and useful that I have had in the past few months. I must confess, however, that I came back feeling no real cause for optimism. I found the situation extremely grave and I would agree with and underline everything that the Secretary of State has said about the gravity of the situation there.
It is true, as he says, that there is a longing for peace on all sides. This is probably the most hopeful development that we have seen in recent months. When we say "peace", we have to recognise that there is also a longing by most people, again on both sides, for a just peace. Then we come down to the crunch—the interpretation of what is a just peace, which depends upon whatever side of the fence a person is. There is broad agreement among those people who think about this matter that peace will be achieved only through political means, that no military solution can be imposed on the Six Counties. As the Secretary


of State constantly reminds us, time is of the utmost importance. It is the one thing of which we have not got enough.
I want to discuss the ingredients of the just peace and put forward one or two suggestions. As with everything else in Northern Ireland at the moment, there are two extreme versions of every situation, including the just peace. On the one hand, the majority is demanding a return to what it considers to be normality, which means the return of Stormont, assurances about the Constitution, the opening up of the "no-go" areas, and an end to civil disobedience. The majority would put these forward as "musts" if there is to be a return to any kind of normality.
On the other hand, the minority is demanding, as always, the end of the Special Powers Act, the release of internees and the reclassification of certain people as political prisoners, and discussions on the re-unification of the 32 counties. These demands are poles apart, but I am convinced that there is a fairly large middle group which, given some real ammunition and encouragement from us, could exert influence on both extreme positions, to bridge what seems to be an impossible gap.
I turn now to say something about the kind of help that we could give that great middle group which, thank Heaven, is getting bigger every day. First, we could immediately introduce proportional representation. The House knows that last year some of us tried to introduce this, with all sorts of other reforms, and failed. We are trying again this year, but the difficulty with Private Members' time is preventing the House of Commons, at least, from discussing the question of proportional representation on a Private Member's Bill. I believe that a discussion will soon take place on this subject in another place.
I hope that the Secretary of State might be able to move in advance of those debates and discussions. Certainly among those with whom I have discussed this proposition, among all groups, there is great support for a return to proportional representation in the Six Counties. It is certainly my opinion, having done as much research as I can on this question, that if Northern Ireland had con-

tinued to use the system with which it started its political life the pattern and nature of its development would have been much different.
I am convinced that the political history of the Province would have been much happier in those circumstances. I therefore believe that a change in the electoral system before the October elections is of crucial importance. I suggest to the Secretary of State that that is a practical and constructive proposition that would help to begin the political argument in the Six Counties.
Secondly, I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider the question of a crash programme for public building and works, allied to the crash programme that I mentioned last week at Question Time, on training, particularly in areas of high unemployment. Again, this is self-evident to those of us who have made a study of the difficulties and the statistics in the Six Counties. This would enable the trade union movement in Northern Ireland—which in my opinion has so far done a tremendous job under extremely difficult conditions—to do an even better job. At present the movement's officers are the only people who bridge the gap between the two communities, because they span North and South, Protestant and Catholic. Given further concrete and positive assistance from this House, they could do even more. A crash programme of public works and of training in areas of high unemployment might begin to produce further benefits from the trade union movement.
I mention in passing—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will wish to develop it—the recently announced SDLP proposals for the redevelopment of the Newry district.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Can the hon. Gentleman give any assurance that the IRA will not immediately blow up what has been built, through the contributions of the people—the factories and offices that are to provide this employment?

Mr. Stallard: I hesitate to say it, but that is a bit of a simple question—and by "simple" I mean silly. How can I give an assurance on behalf of the IRA, in all honesty? I am a member of the British Labour Party and I will give the hon. Gentleman all the assurances he


wants from that end. That is as far as I can go.
The Secretary of State mentioned his assurance to the minority about no discrimination, and so on. I commend to him a short Bill of Rights which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) tried to introduce. An attempt was made last year to introduce the same sort of Measure in a slightly different form. The introduction of a shorter version is being attempted this year, in both Houses. We are convinced that if that Bill, or its principles, were accepted, it would help to create in the Six Counties an atmosphere in which people could begin to work constructively for a just and peaceful solution and Irishmen could resolve their own problems. It is a very short Bill, which would abolish the Special Powers Act—a real bone of contention—would end discrimination—and would allow men and women of all political persuasions and of none, including Republicans, openly to organise, discuss and advocate their beliefs. That would be a real step forward.
I end on that note, urging the Secretary of State to study those three simple, urgent, practical steps, which would strengthen the middle ground, give it much more influence over both extreme positions, and make a meaningful contribution towards bringing an early end to the conflict in the Six Counties.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order. I am a little uncertain of the form of this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we taking now the three subsequent orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—including the Appropriation Order? The Motion relating to suspension and prolonging the Sittings says that it may be proceeded with at any hour, and that would suggest that it can be taken now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I understand the hon. Member's understanding of the matter, but I think it is a wrong one.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) spoke about the extreme positions. The IRA is destroying factories and offices and homes and the

employment of the people and is killing people. On the other hand, there are those who wish for peace and wish to see the community and their lives preserved. Those are the two extremes in Northern Ireland.
It is the terrible toll of human suffering which has driven Protestants to actions which would not have been contemplated even six weeks ago, and it is pointless to have this debate on Northern Ireland unless it is recognised that Ulster stands at the precipice. It is easy to counsel restraint and patience, and this indeed I do, but it brings no comfort to the loyal people who are daily under attack.
However, I acknowledge the sincerity and honest endeavour of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We may not always agree with what he does, we may not always agree with what he says, as, for instance, in a statement a short time ago that Andersons town is not a "no-go" area, when everybody in Belfast knows that it is. Nevertheless, most people appreciate that he is prepared to listen with patience and to act with integrity, and those are two qualities which may yet bring results.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sure it would help the House as a whole if the hon. Member would explain precisely what is meant by "no-go" area. Perhaps there could be an intervention from the Government Front Bench so that we could have the definition clear and then we should know whether the various places which have been referred to as "no-go" areas fit the criteria. Many of us with a little experience do not find the hon. Member's definition exactly accurate.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am not going to do that and I am not going into the experience which the hon. Member and his hon. Friends in that group which visited Belfast a short time ago had. I doubt very much whether many of them realise—

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I simply wanted to say that I think that he must accept the fact that the Army does patrol throughout the Andersons town area

Mr. Kilfedder: Of course I accept that the Army in armoured cars drives through these areas, but that does not mean that


they cannot be classified as "no-go" areas when Republican terrorists can group there and train there and organise there, and from positions there launch out on attacks in adjoining areas.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is my hon. Friend aware that Belfast Corporation has had to score out 600 parking offences because summonses for those offences could not be served in the area he is talking about?

Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend bears out what I am saying. It is right to say that the television detector van dare not go into such an area as Andersonstown, and summonses cannot be served there. Obviously, they are "no-go" areas.
I have come straight today from Roden Street which is in my former constituency of West Belfast and the scene of the dastardly shooting on Friday night when a 16-year-old girl was murdered by terrorists, and a number of young people were wounded. It is not the first time that that street and the adjoining area have been the object of terrorist attacks. It is the area where the Secretary of State ordered the demolition of derelict houses which have been used as vantage points by IRA gunmen for attacks on local people, police and soldiers. The unfortunate people who live in Roden Street and that area have been living under the threat of murder for almost three years now. They cannot find peace by day or by night, and some have been driven out of their homes, although others are courageously staying on in their houses in which they have lived all their lives. I would ask the Secretary of State to see what can be done to rehouse those people, and then to destroy those houses which are providing some sort of advantage to the IRA gunmen.
This is only one street in West Belfast; there are a hundred like it; and West Belfast is only one of the hardest pressed areas for the loyal majority, and it is not the only one. The conflict has spread out to all areas throughout the Province. The gunman has made sure that no one has escaped his ferocity. All live in fear of the bomber and the sniper. There is hardly a large town in Northern Ireland which has not had its main street ripped apart by explosives planted in cars by the IRA and left to destroy the commercial heart of an area.
Those who a year or two ago in Northern Ireland heard about the troubles only on the radio, or saw them only on the television, see them now on their own doorsteps, and experience them direct, and there is no gainsaying the fact that the trouble is far worse now and more widespread than it ever was. It does not do the Government or the people any good for spokesmen to try to suggest that there has been an improvement since 24th March, since clearly, there has not been any change for the better. The IRA is dominant and rampant as ever it was. People can be forgiven for thinking that the time is near at hand when they must take the law into their own hands. I pray that there will be no Protestant backlash, and Iurge, as I have always urged, that restraint will continue to be shown, but it ought to be recognised that if the atrocities and the devastation being wrought in the law-abiding communities in Ulster by the IRA had been perpetrated in any other part of the world the people there would long ago have risen up in anger, which would not have been abated until they had destroyed the evil in their midst. The Ulster people have been pushed to the limits of human endurance. The natural discipline of the majority has stood them in good stead, but it must be recognised that this cannot go on for ever.
All this terror is in the name of Irish republicanism. It is a deliberate and calculated attempt to provoke retaliation by the loyal people of Ulster. Whenever the IRA makes a mistake and murders its own people, as, for example, in the explosions at McGurk's Bar and Kelly's Bar, it immediately blames it on the Protestants, in order to arouse its followers to greater animosity against the Protestants. Therefore, the IRA gains both ways. The tragedy is that its propaganda is often believed.
Such is the hold of Irish Republican mythology. It continues to hold some long after they have left Ireland. We all know the Irish Americans' attitude towards Britain. This is true of the citizens of the Republic who are now living in England. Immediately following my Adjournment debate on the subject of IRA victims I received several offensive letters from Irishmen resident in this country. I received one from which I should like to quote. The writer is


talking about Mrs. Hyland and her daughter who was imprisoned by the IRA for a number of days, starved and beaten. Her hair was torn and cut and she was tarred and feathered—a young girl of 16. This is what that Irishman living in England says:
I think Mrs. Hyland should not fall for the rotten money she got, but should teach her girls manners, and not let them mix with such rotten, diseased Army and police thugs".
That is what this Irishman living in England thinks about the British army and the police in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the Irish propaganda is skilful and successful in the United States and in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that the writer of that letter is typical of a great many Eire citizens in this country who respond to the call for funds for the IRA.
I appeal to the Secretary of State tonight to consult the Home Secretary about the action that should be taken to stop this Republican fund-gathering for money which is used to buy explosives and guns with which to kill more of our soldiers, police and fellow citizens. The IRA can collect money from other sources. Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, announced that he had been supplying arms to the Irish Republicans fighting in Ireland. This should be a warning to the people in this country and in the United States who are giving money, and show them the meaning of the real struggle which is taking place in Northern Ireland.
Recent newspaper reports and evidence of single-shot killings suggest that the IRA is employing one or two sharp shooters in Londonderry and Belfast. They are believed to be foreigners hired for their skill. I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend what has been done about tracing these men.
The ease with which people can enter and leave Northern Ireland, particularly through the Republic of Eire, is a danger which must be tackled. Some time ago I suggested a system of identity cards for people in Northern Ireland so that it would be easier for members of the security forces to carry out checks. There is no reason why in this emergency we should not adopt the practice which is already in existence in some Common Market countries whereby every citizen

must have an identity card and register his place of residence, which he cannot change without notifying the police. Entry into Northern Ireland from the Republic of Eire should be only by passport. These restrictions would be irksome for all people in Northern Ireland, and perhaps more irksome for some than for others, but they would contribute to the saving of lives which is what really matters.
We are dealing here with a vicious but well-organised enemy. In Londonderry where the police are under heavy pressure, IRA spies watch the comings and goings at every police station. This also applies in Belfast. The registration numbers of private cars belonging to policemen are carefully noted and passed on to the IRA gunmen in the Republic areas. As a result, gunmen have killed policemen in their own private cars travelling on police duties, travelling to work or going about their ordinary everyday activities.
In Londonderry when the police are attacked they do not have the means to retaliate effectively. Their revolvers are short-range weapons with a range of only 50 yards and they are useless against an enemy retreating rapidly after having used a machine gun. Recently in Londonderry three policemen in a stationary car close to the Bogside were suddenly fired upon by three youths at short distance. The car was penetrated by 17 bullets and two of the policemen were badly wounded. It was only by good fortune that they were not killed outright. One young policeman, who had been in the city for only a week, lost part of a leg as the result of the shooting. If those policemen had had a machine gun in the car or some better weapons they would have been able to shoot one or perhaps all of the three gunmen as they retreated across an open space into the Bogside. That situation is something which I deplore.
What a contrast with the position in the Irish Republic. Mr. Lynch has had no compunction about introducing special courts which sit under specially selected judges. We can accept that these judges were not selected for their mild attitude towards IRA terrorists. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider introducing such special courts in Northern Ireland. These special courts in Eire can deal even with persons who merely refuse to recognise the ordinary courts and with those who


are charged solely with membership of the IRA. That is happening in a country which has barely been touched by the wave of murder and destruction in Northern Ireland.
When the Eire Army was faced recently with a relatively peaceful crowd of demonstrators they fixed bayonets and were prepared to use them. Such action if taken by the British Army would no doubt be deplored by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that action certainly controlled that crowd of demonstrators.
Hon. Members should recognise the great emotion aroused in myself and my colleagues who represent the loyal people of Ulster whenever another member of our community is murdered or mutilated by IRA bombs and bullets and the killers return to the safety of the Republican areas. The murderers must be well known to many of the residents of those Republican areas where they are sheltered and organised. These people, some of whom profess to desire peace—and I accept that some wish for peace—are not prepared to see the murderers brought to justice by themselves giving evidence and information to the members of the security forces.
I ask the House to remember what the people of Northern Ireland are experiencing. It is a terrible experience. It is easy for hon. Members to discuss Northern Ireland in the peace and security of this Chamber. Let them live in any town in Northern Ireland and they will know what ordinary, decent men and women have to put up with from these Republicans who are aided and abetted by Communists and every other person who is delighted to feed on the trouble in Northern Ireland.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: I am afraid that I cannot follow most of the comments of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I know that he believes intensely in what he has said—he has expressed it privately to me—but on reflection he may wish to reconsider some of his remarks.
I wish, first, to address myself to the hon. Gentleman's comments about Irish people living in this country. He was profoundly insulting to several million people who live in this country and con-

tribute to its wellbeing. They are law abiding citizens, some of whom are in the Services and some of whom serve this country in hospitals and essential services. I understand the hon. Member's frustration about the violence that he has seen around him, but I wish that he would condemn violence from wherever it comes instead of being partial in what he says.
During the Whitsun Recess I went to Northern Ireland and to Dublin. For two days in a picket line in Dublin I protested against the violence of the Provisional IRA. I have also protested in Downing Street about the policy of internment. Among Members on this side of the House there is a degree of consistency in condemning violence from wherever it comes.
We are talking of a situation which is the inevitable result of a minority's being deprived of fundamental rights for fifty years. We see today the consequence of that denial. It therefore ill behoves the hon. Member for Down, North to ventilate his views in the way that he has, without looking at the other side of the coin.
Who needs enemies on the Government side—and this applies particularly to the Secretary of State—when one has friends like the hon. Member for Down, North? The hon. Gentleman said that there was not a main road in Down which has not been devastated. I was in the county town of Down less than three weeks ago, and I know that in the last three years there have been two bomb explosions in Downpatrick. One has a job to find exactly where they are. If that is an example of the sort of distortion that we have from the hon. Gentleman, he should be asked to quantify his allegations. We talk of no-go areas. I wonder when the hon. Gentleman last visited such an area.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his courage and dedication in the last ten weeks. It is difficult to measure his achievements against the background of disorder, violence and civil disobedience. However, what happened in Northern Ireland is that period of ten weeks has led to some easing in tension. In Derry and in some parts of Belfast we can already discern an attitude among many people that enough is enough, and that they want something better. On the


other hand—and this is the sort of tightrope that one has to walk—there is an escalation of violence and a feeling that the UDA or in the Tartan gangs people are out of control. In the last few weeks there has been an escalation of killing, with people driving round in cars, opening their windows and shooting. That sort of activity has occurred on both sides of the fence.
I recognise what the Secretary of State has said, and I welcome his views on the so-called no-go areas, but I should like to look more carefully at some of the items upon which he touched. Among the majority community in the North there is a feeling that the actions of the Secretary of State have been one-sided, and directed against them. They feel that in some respects the right hon. Gentleman's actions have been hostile to the Protestant community. That poses the problem of how one presents to a community what one is seeking to do—a community that has lived cheek by jowl in hostility for the last 50 or 60 years. It is a difficult problem.
When I examine Press comment in Northern Ireland I am surprised to see that it would appear to be the right hon. Gentleman's friends who are hostile to his initiatives and are working to thwart and frustrate what he is trying to do. It seems an extraordinary situation, but it is a fact.
The Secretary of State referred to internment, and to the equation of law and order and the diminishing of violence. I ask him to consider whether or not that is the major obstacle to getting meaningful talks going. I ask him, having examined all the cases, to look again to see whether he can either charge the people who are held or release them. I hope that he will at least set a time scale by which he intends to act. I was recently asked—surprisingly enough, by a Protestant trade unionist—"Why not let them all out and then see whether this will bring the SDLP to the conference table, to see whether they are serious about the idea of working towards normal relations in the North".
I turn to the question of the Army, with particular reference to Questions which were asked on this matter last

Thursday. In a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to a statement made the previous evening by the ex-Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, to the effect that the Army and the police were opposed to his policy of internment. The Secretary of State was quick to reply that there was no question of such an allegation, since this was constitutionally impossible. Since the Army has an extremely difficult task, we surely should seek to achieve a degree of clarification on the question whether the Army in Northern Ireland is dealing with urban guerrillas or is there as a peace-keeping force, or is a combination of the two. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to explain the nature of his initiative to senior ranks in the Army, and to make sure that it is properly understood and carried out?
There are one or two instances that I wish to draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention since they suggest that the Army's activities have run counter to what he and the Government are trying to do. Furthermore, I should like to ask about the rôle of the Special Branch. As I understand it, the task of the Special Branch is to draw up lists and provide documentation and evidence on those who are detained or interned. In other words, the Prime Minister of the day considers each case, and if he says, "Yes, he is going inside", the man is lifted. If that procedure was followed, the fact that the Secretary of State has seen fit to release 500 such people means that 500 errors were made by the Special Branch and by the Prime Minister of the day. If that is the case, can one say that the Special Branch is an impartial body which is attuned to the political mind of the Government and to what the Government are attempting to do? These are relevant and important questions.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman being fair in suggesting that the release of internees meant that 500 mistakes had been made? Is it not the case that the high water mark has changed in terms of the level of IRA leaders who are currently being interned?

Mr. Foley: Possibly I was being a little unfair. Perhaps I should have said that there were many errors, instead of referring to a specific figure of 500.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have always made it absolutely clear that I take personal responsibility for what I have done in all these matters, which is constitutionally correct. I have taken my decisions, as the previous Prime Minister took his decisions, and I would not regard my decision as right and his as wrong. They are decisions taken in personal circumstances, and there is no reflection whatever on the Special Branch of the RUC.

Mr. Foley: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says.
Reference has been made to the local government situation in Northern Ireland. The last local government elections there took place in 1967, when it was discovered that the local government boundaries bore no relationship to the size and movement of population. McCrory produced proposals which meant a two-tier form of government—a local government consisting of 26 local councils with very limited powers, a series of area boards, and then the upper tier—Stormont—with enhanced powers in planning and other forms of local government activity.
The boundaries have been drawn up. Legislation was being prepared when the decision was taken to suspend Stormont. There are considerable arguments in favour of going ahead with the legislation and having local elections in the autumn. It is argued that if people are given the opportunity to use the ballot box it provides an immediate partial answer to violence, since it is the beginning of some degree of normality in the community. The counter-argument is that, given the present system of elections that we have, this would immediately build on the existing polarisation. Instead of bringing the communities together it would tend to enhance differences. In Northern Ireland, the dominant issue in the past has been that the vote has never been split. Each issue has ended up as a matter between Catholics and Protestants. This could be said to be an argument for postponing the elections.
I stress again the necessity for the introduction of some aspects of normality in the North on which it is possible to build. It is a special case. It is an argument for proportional representation. Taking seven or five member constituencies across the religious divide, in effect one would

create the chance of a degree of cross-voting. Given that possibility to build upon some degree of middle ground, one could try to eliminate extremism on either side. If that were done it would produce 26 local councils with very limited powers but with people from both communities working together at grass-roots level, which could be said to be a vital instrument for community development, quite apart from anything else.
The argument in favour of announcing that we intend to find the time to pass the necessary legislation, so that elections may take place in October, is a profound one. This, in itself, is part of bringing about the kind of de-escalation that we wish to see in an area where it is possible to do it.
It is very difficult to envisage what might happen. Assuming that it brought about a de-escalation in violence, to what should we move? What is normality? Is it a return to the pre-1968 period, in which second-class citizens were kept as second-class citizens with no prospect of development, in terms of jobs or opportunities? Alternatively, are we to look for and to find ways of bringing together from both communities people who will merge and produce ideas for their future, living and working together?
Anyone in Northern Ireland who believes in the link with Britain has to work to preserve it. Equally, someone who believes in a united Ireland has to work to preserve it. There is nothing wrong in that, providing that neither uses violence to maintain his view. Each has to earn the confidence of his colleagues on the shop floor, and the acceptance of his ideas. But all that is a long way ahead. The task at the moment is to try to find a way through the blockage that is preventing a dialogue. It is to that task that the Secretary of State must address himself.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples: I intervene only briefly because there are many hon. Members on both sides who have direct constituency interests in Northern Ireland.
It is difficult to disagree with a great deal that the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) said. I am only sorry that he started with an attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Down,


North (Mr. Kilfedder). My hon. Friend and those of his colleagues on both sides of the House who represent Northern Ireland constituencies live very close to these problems, much closer than any of us who represent constituencies on this side of the Channel. We must respect the very strong feelings that they have.
I want to urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if he needs any urging, not to be deflected from the path upon which he has embarked. In the short term, the first priority must be to divorce the gunman from the support that he has from the civilian population. He can operate only if he has that support. We have seen that in every country where there has been violence of this kind.
My right hon. Friend has already achieved a considerable measure of success. We have seen the action which has been taken by certain members of the population, especially the women in the difficult Catholic areas. We have seen another manifestation of it, and that is the growing lack of discrimination in the kind of attack mounted by the gunmen. They are attacks which, if there is any strategy behind their action, can only do damage to the cause that they purport to represent. More and more the gunmen are coming out in their true colours and being seen by the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, to be members of organisations which do not have the good of Ireland, North or South, at the back of their minds but who act purely in order to try to create chaos and anarchy. The people of Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant, recognise these people more and more for what they are.
However, I hope that the Protestant population who represent the majority will not be tempted into taking retaliatory action. Many of us who have admired the way in which the majority population in Northern Ireland have restrained themselves under immense provocation were a little worried by some of the pictures that we saw on television over the weekend. I urge those in the majority who have exercised restraint under enormous difficulties and provocation to realise that by continuing their restraint they gain the support of the people not only of this country but of the whole world who

admire the way in which they have behaved.
I make only one comment about internment. I believe that its introduction meant inevitably that responsibility for law and order had to be transferred to Westminster and to this Government. I say that as one who was Minister of State at the time and had to answer letters from hon. Members asking about those who were interned. Once the situation had been reached that internment had to be introduced, it was inevitable that the Westminster Government and Westminster Ministers who were responsible for the Armed Forces—and it would not have been possible to have undertaken a policy of internment without the Armed Forces—should take over responsibility.
It is easy to be wise after the event. Perhaps my right hon. Friend's task would have been easier if the decision to transfer responsibility had been made at an earlier date when those difficulties were recognised, and I say that as one who had some minor responsibility in these matters. Looking back over the period, I think one can say that perhaps it would have been right if the change had come rather earlier.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As he was a member of the Government at that time, my hon. Friend should be aware that Mr. Faulkner said that no one was going to be put away unless there was evidence that he was guilty. Now we find that the Secretary of State has to let these men out and he cannot charge them because he has no evidence against them. Surely my hon. Friend cannot divorce himself from the responsibility which he had as a member of the Government which supported Mr. Faulkner in bringing in internment?

Mr. Sharples: I am not in any way trying to evade whatever minor responsibility I may have had. All I say is that, looking back, it would have been better if responsibility had been transferred to Westminster at an earlier stage. It is very easy in matters of this kind to be wise after the event.
In the long term the Army will have to come off the streets of Northern Ireland. We cannot go on for ever with the Army carrying out the duties of the police on the streets of British cities. We


may have to go on with that for a long time in Northern Ireland, but in the end we shall have to return to a proper system of policing there as in the rest of the country, with the Army acting, as it always has done, in support of the civil power.
When that happens, I believe that a great deal will depend on the strength and efficiency of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Is the strength of the RUC increasing, or is the wastage rate greater than the number of recruits? About a year ago I was worried about the number of recruits to the RUC and the amount of wastage. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary went to Northern Ireland and made certain recommendations about how the strength of the force might be increased, and I think that it would be helpful if, in winding up the debate, my hon. Friend were to say something about that, because it is essential to increase the strength of the RUC if it is eventually to take over the responsibilities now shouldered by the Army, and in my view the strength would have to be not less than 6,000 men.
There are several hopeful signs in Northern Ireland. There is the growing exasperation, particularly of the Catholic community, against the gunmen, against terrorism and against the destruction of opportunities for employment. There is another hopeful sign, which is perhaps slightly more controversial in this House in view of the debates that we are to have later this week, and that is the overwhelming vote in the Republic of Ireland for Joining the Common Market. It shows that whatever the Sinn Fein may say, and we know that the IRA is wholly opposed to the idea, the vast majority of people in Southern Ireland wish Ireland to look outwards and become a modern State playing its full part in the Community of Europe. Whatever we in this House may feel about the EEC. I believe that that is a hopeful sign.

Mr. Orme: The Irish Labour Party is completely opposed to violence, and Conor Cruise O'Brien and his colleagues are opposed to the Common Market and have campaigned against it. Will the hon. Gentleman take that into account?

Mr. Sharples: Yes, but I still regard that vote as a hopeful sign that Ireland is looking outwards.
Let us not under-estimate the political significance of the Border, but I believe that in the end perhaps not a solution to, but an amelioration of the situation in Ireland as a whole can come about by economic co-operation between the North and the South. As my right hon. Friend said, the enemies in both North and South Ireland are fear and rumour. We must recognise the genuine fear of the Catholic community. It has existed for a long time. But there is an equally genuine fear among the majority population that by some back-door means, by some act of conciliation, so called, they will be handed over to the South of Ireland.
I believe that everyone who speaks on this subject is right to emphasise, and to go on emphasising, as Mr. Attlee did when he was Prime Minister, and as every Prime Minister since then has done, that there is no question of the North of Ireland being handed over without the full consent of the people of that country.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The full-hearted consent.

Mr. Sharples: I shall not be sidetracked by my right hon. Friend. I mean the full consent of the people of that country.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: My hon. Friend must realise that people in Northern Ireland are getting fed up with the kind of statement that he has just made, that the real enemy in Northern Ireland is fear. It is not fear that blows up two or three factories every day and shoots two or three men in the back. That is not fear.

Mr. Sharples: In spite of what my hon. Friend has said, the real enemy is fear, and it is a fear which is exploited by the gunman and the terrorist. It is easy to exploit that fear. Unless there was fear the gunman would not get the support that he has had from people in the Catholic areas. The fear amongst the Protestant population is that by some back-door deal they will be handed over to the South of Ireland. My right hon. Friend went out of his way to make it clear that the grounds for that fear do not exist, and he was right to do so.
I wish my right hon. Friend all success in the task on which he has embarked. I believe that he will succeed, and I believe, too, that the House will support him.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Some problems of parliamentary procedure in Northern Ireland affairs are not yet resolved, and until they are a three-hour general debate such as this is of great value. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for arranging that it should take place tonight, when we are to discuss, later, other matters regarding Northern Ireland. Some specific issues have been raised, and I should like to mention a few general ones which I hope will be discussed, as they have been in the past.
Straight away, in the face of the grave statement by the Secretary of State, I want to make it clear from this side our general support is still given to the Government, and to the right hon. Gentleman in particular. We agree with the former Minister of State, Home Department—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies)—that the right hon. Gentleman should not be deflected from the policy that he has been following.
To be trite, there are real problems in Northern Ireland. The former Minister of State said that it was easy to be wise after the event with regard to direct rule, but I would say that it is extremely difficult to be wise at all on the problems of Northern Ireland. It was typical of the Secretary of State that he should admit the error of the previous policy. The Government were right, in the end, to take direct rule.
With regard to the development of the initiative in the months ahead, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned internment. We listened carefully to his foots concerning reports and accusations about former internees and the part that they are now playing in Northern Ireland. We are glad to note that for the past few weeks and months internment without trial has been ending. The right hon. Gentleman's aim must continue to be to end it.
The difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman put to the House in terms of the response that he gets from others in the community is one that we understand, but it is still vital to end internment. Quite different from the ending of internment is the ending of sentences by the courts for crimes dealt with by the rule of law. This argument has consistently been put forward by the Social Demo-

cratic and Labour Party, all along the line.
The ending of internment will be the signal for the easy ending of the rent and rates strike. This afternoon I met Professor Townsend, of the Child Poverty Action Group, who has just come back from Belfast and is, I understand, to meet the Minister of State in a few days. He made two points to me. He spoke first of the inequities of the Repayment of Debt Act, and went on to say that in his view the administrative arrangements make it difficult for some people who wish to pay their back rent to do so without suffering financially. I hope that the question will be considered in the light of the views that Professor Townsend will be putting to the hon. Gentleman in a few days.
With regard to special powers, a country in which law and order breaks down needs a system of emergency action. At the moment, with fears of further violence in the minds of many people it is even more appropriate to consider what to do, but we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remove Northern Ireland from the effects of a Special Powers Act. If there is a need for emergency action it should be dealt with in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom.
A number of my hon. Friends have mentioned proportional representation. It is still our hope that the local government elections at the end of the year will be run on a basis of proportional representation. This is not just a fancy franchise. They had it in Northern Ireland in its earliest days. There could be arguments about the type of PR, but such a system will have to be operated in a polarised society with a socio-religious divide.
The nature of Stormont over the last 50 years, and the fact that in certain jobs in Northern Ireland, unlike Great Britain as a whole, people have had to take the oath of allegiance not just to the Crown but to the Government of the day, explains the difficulties and the underlying essence of the nature of the State there. Without PR the moderate parties will be obliterated. With PR, the advocates of violence can test their support. People talk of negotiations, whatever that means. Talks must take place with representatives of the people, and PR is the way to ascertain, in the sort of society that exists in


Northern Ireland, who are the true representatives of the people. I note that in the Green Paper issued by the Stormont Administration PR was a possibility. We hope that we will hear more from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
The Secretary of State rehearsed what had happened since his initiative. He mentioned the growing peace movement, the steps that the SDLP has taken, and the announcement by the official IRA, and added that in some form or another there will be elections in a matter of months.
The time is fast coming—it is only a couple of months since direct rule was imposed—when discussions must start on representative institutions in the Province as a whole. In my view there is no question of a return to Stormont.
A suggestion which people might have to discuss is some kind of GLC-type administration in Northern Ireland. The vast sums of money that are spent on a local government basis by the GLC makes it at least appropriate for consideration. Of course, security would not be its responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman recently put before the House the financial arrangements for Northern Ireland, and it was of great value to investigate them. Something like that should be done—perhaps a Green Paper to give more information about the present arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland, as well as some of the possibilities for its future.
I have already mentioned the question of the oath of allegiance being taken to the Crown and to the Government. I wonder why. If that sort of system operated in this country nearly half the Members of this House would not be able to take it. If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) were to take up his abode permanently in Northern Ireland and took up certain posts, I imagine that he would have to take an oath of allegiance to the Prime Minister. From his speech yesterday, I imagine that that would be difficult for him to do. Yet that, apparently, is part of the law of Northern Ireland. Why?
It is important to make clear the law of citizenship not just in Northern Ireland but coming from outside. This is a curious thing in Northern Ireland.

But it is the future of Northern Ireland as well as its present that ought to be in this Green Paper. The more that people talk about forms of democratic government the more they will tend, in the face of great difficulty, not to support violence.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of "no-go" areas. In the discussion that took place across the Floor of the Chamber it became clear to me that what is a "no-go" area ought to be defined. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has a definition of a "no-go" area which is different from that of other people. In the months ahead the question of the "no-go" areas will have to be decided at a political and not a military level.

Mr. McMaster: This academic quarrel about "no-go" areas does not get one anywhere. The people of Northern Ireland are worried that there are certain areas of Belfast and Londonderry from which gunmen can shoot for hours at police and soldiers but into which no police and soldiers can go to search out and arrest them.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman raises the different aspect of the problem of law and order in Northern Ireland—and a very serious one it is. My only point is that it would be possible—I speak as a former Army Minister—given the forces available to the Army, for them to go into those areas easily, and, as has been put to me, in the course of a couple of hours. But what good would it do at the end of the day if the casualties that occurred were great? It would fit the pattern of Ireland over the last 200 or 300 years. We are not seeking solutions in that way. With all the difficulties involved, the solutions must be political. In the steps that he has taken the right hon. Gentleman is moving in that direction.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) was trying to say that although there may be casualties and political disadvantages in the short term, in the long term the prospect of enclaves being allowed to continue could pose a much greater and more serious threat to people and to the political system as a whole.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman may have his views. But, given the nature of


the Northern Ireland State and how it was set up in the first instance, and the fact that a large group of people there did not wish to be part of it, the problem can have only a political solution.
We have talked today, quite properly, about the majority community in Northern Ireland. It will not be new for me to say this, because I have felt it all along. Their situation needs understanding. Their feeling that there is more concern for the minority than the majority is easy to understand, especially at present, with the steps that are being taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The proper support given to the Government by the Opposition does not prevent my saying this, because it is a factor that must be taken into account.
For almost exactly 100 years the Tory Party has played the Orange card, historically. That is why the majority in Northern Ireland are Unionists. There are other reasons, but in political terms that is the reason. For that reason alone, the Unionists feel bewildered and let down as a result of the last few months, and the last few weeks, in particular. It is because of this that I said that the feeling of Unionists needs understanding, in the face of bombing and murder, and in view of some of the letters that I have had from people who have lost limbs, and so on. The hon. Member for Down, North quoted a letter from a mentally deranged Irishman and made judgments about the whole Irish community in this country. I do not make judgments from the relatively few people who write to me. Some of the letters are not readable. But I wish that people could read some that I have received from people who have lost limbs, and lost dear ones.
It is extremely naïve to imagine many people will start thinking about future constitutions. In Northern Ireland it works both ways. Just as it appears that there is fear in the Protestant areas, I understand that there is fear in the Catholic areas. That is the danger. The fear grows on itself. The majority in Northern Ireland—the Unionists—do not trust the politicians. They have never had much time for people on this side of the House. Now their worst fears are realised and, perhaps, they turn in anger more at those whom they have supported over the years. They must be given the reassurance that is provided by legislation

but, more than that, we must find a way of clearly stating, in the face of this feeling, that people cannot be bull-dozed or bombed into the South. I have met very few who believe that. An odd point is that on the one or two occasions that I have been to the South I have never met anyone who believed that that could happen. A wide variety of those whom I have met in the North have said exactly the same thing.
The Secretary of State is only at the beginning of the road. He is moving in the right direction. As he made clear, at present he is standing at a dangerous corner. There is little sign of people looking up the street that leads to democratic elections. There are far more signs of them moving in the other direction. However, if this dangerous corner can be turned and the problems that arise out of it solved there will be other dangerous corners in the months ahead. Nobody could possibly believe that the age-old problem of Northern Ireland will be solved by or at a stroke—as we are coining phrases this evening.
Some people tell me that the Protestants are on the brink of insurrection. Some of those in the minority are still engaging in violent activities. I ask them to pause and listen to the voice of sanity. Last evening the British Army played the rôle for which it went to Northern Ireland and separated sectarian groups. The Minister has praised the Army, and in that one small way it has indicated to me the valuable job it did last evening and will continue to do.
Ultimately, the future of Northern Ireland, in the true sense of the term, will be decided only by the people there. With co-operation there is hope; without it there is at least the possibility of a civil war. The Minister's initiative has had the response that he has rehearsed. We now need more than that from both communities and we need it soon. We need it this week, if some of the forebodings that have been expressed are not to come to pass.

8.37 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I did not agree with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), when he mentioned that it was easy for some hon. Members to speak in this debate. It is difficult. Hon. Members for Northern


Ireland have a solemn and serious responsibility. It would be my dread that I would not be able to set before the House some of the matters hon. Members should take careful and particular knowledge of at this time.
Let no hon. Member think that Northern Ireland is at the beginning of days of great hope. Let us face the fact that a dark shadow now hangs over Northern Ireland. It will take all the responsibility and skill of every responsible member of the community to avert a situation which to contemplate is horrifying in the extreme. If I were able I would try to impart to the House the seriousness and solemnity of the present situation. Those hon. Members who take part in the debate will find great difficulty in trying to get over the points that are uppermost in their minds.
One point needs to be underlined. I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the strong assurance that he repeated in this House to the people of Northern Ireland, and especially to the majority, that there will be no effort made by the Government to engineer them into the south of Ireland. I use the word "engineer" carefully and deliberately because it was used yesterday by a spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley), in a radio programme emanating from Eire, when he said that he thought it was the duty of the British Government to engineer the majority of the people of Northern Ireland into the South of Ireland.
There are forces in Northern Ireland which are out to weaken the link between Northern Ireland and this country. The Irish Republican Army is out to disengage Britain from intervention and to break the link that is cherished by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. That is its objective, its end, its goal.
The great tragedy in Northern Ireland is that those who have preached loyalty to Britain and to the Crown and made that their main political platform—the Unionists—are now preaching a Protestant Sinn Feinism: that Ulster should go it alone, that the loyalty of the Ulster people should be to themselves, to some sort of nationalistic Ulster, to some new provincial Government, to some new hazy, crazy independent Ulster.
I know the Protestant people of Northern Ireland as well as anyone in this House. I believe that deeply embedded in the Protestant people of Ulster is the desire to cherish the link, not to break it, not to corrode it, not to try to undermine it, not to try to show that they are selfish people. I believe they want to remain steadfast in and unmoveable from their British connection. All hon. Members should face that situation.
I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland will fight to get the Unionist Party back into power and to make Mr. Faulkner again the Prime Minister. However, every loyalist in Northern Ireland would fight if there were any attempt to override the wishes of the majority and to push them into an all-Ireland Republic. In such circumstances the real feelings of the community would be aroused.
Forces are at work in Northern Ireland seeking to undermine confidence in the British Government. Such people are doing a grave and terrible disservice to the people of Northern Ireland and to the loyalist community which in time past they exploited for their own political ends to keep themselves in office. Those people have gone to bed Unionists, but, because the Westminster Government have taken over the Government of Northern Ireland, they have got out of bed Protestant Sinn Feiners, and now cry, "We ourselves alone". Those people do not reflect the real, deep feelings of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to internment. This is a serious and terrible problem. Shortly after internment was brought in, a deputation of Stormont Members of Parliament visited the Long Kesh internment camp. As we left that camp and looked back upon it, I made a remark which was totally unacceptable to the Unionists who formed the majority of the deputation, namely: "You have started something, but how to bring it to an end will be the gravest problem you have ever faced".
I believe that the bringing in of internment dug the ground from beneath the Stormont Government, and they helped by this foolish policy to bring Stormont to an end. Why do I say it was a foolish policy. Because on the day that Mr. Faulkner announced internment, he


also said that he was banning the Derry apprentice boys' parade. Whether we like it or not, the two parties were played off one against the other. In effect, he said: "First, we will deal with the Protestants in Londonderry and, secondly, we will bring in internment". All hon. Members should appreciate that Mr. Faulkner made it clear that the ordinary processes of the law had failed.
I have pressed the Government Front Bench on this point and asked why there could not be jury trials. The Home Secretary has said that juries were being intimidated. Yet tonight the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has told us that people are being put away after jury trials, and they could always have been put away after jury trials.
Let us remember that Mr. Faulkner said that the processes of the law had failed. I do not believe that the processes of the law had failed. I believe that the processes of the law had not been properly tried. It is a cherished principle under British administration that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend now explain why special courts have been set up in the South of Ireland? Obviously the southern Irish do not believe they can rely on juries. I am interested in my hon. Friend's views.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is a sad commentary on Mr. Lynch's position that he has to have special courts in the South of Ireland. It means that he himself has allowed the processes of the law to break down in his country. It is evident that he has done this because people who had been arrested were being let off prior to being brought before the courts and before guilt was brought home to them.
There is this distinction. The vast majority of the people in the South of Ireland, whatever their views may be, believe in the objectives of the Irish Republican Army. Therefore, the majority on a jury would have a bias towards those objectives. They may deplore and condemn the methods, but their objectives are the same. Two-thirds of the population of the North of Ireland are opposed to the objectives

of the Irish Republican Army. Therefore, any balanced jury would not have those upon it who would be prejudiced for or against the person that would be tried. That would be the answer.
I can well understand those in the House who do not know Northern Ireland wondering about this matter. The processes of the law were not tried. When questioned in the Stormont about this matter, Mr. Faulkner said that no one was put away in Long Kesh without him being personally and absolutely sure that there was enough reliable evidence to put him away. That was a very big claim. That claim is now being contradicted by the act of the Secretary of State in letting these people out because he cannot, even if he would, bring them before the courts: there has not been the absolute evidence about which Mr. Faulkner boasted.

Mr. Frank McManus: The hon. Gentleman is clearing up many points. Will he clear up this one for my satisfaction and perhaps that of the rest of the House? We both heard the Secretary of State say that the release of internees must be related to the reduction in terrorism as the right hon. Member calls it. Quite apart from whether these men were involved in violence before they were interned, can the hon. Gentleman persuade the House that they could not possibly have been involved in violence since they have been in internment, unless the guards at Long Kesh and elsewhere have been doing a bad job? How in God's name can there be a relationship between violence and a reduction in the number of internees?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I leave it to the hon. Member to explain that to the House, because I cannot follow him in any way in the argument he has put. I do not know whether these men were engaged in subversive activities before they were shut away. However, this I do say, and it should be said. These men were never brought before a court. The charges against them and the people who levelled those charges were not made known to them. When the right hon. Gentleman releases them he is not releasing convicted prisoners, but such is the twist in our society in Northern Ireland today that it is almost political suicide for me to make this speech because the people


think that these men are convicted IRA gunmen who have committed murders, and that the Secretary of State is releasing them upon the streets of Belfast.
We all know that these men were never charged and never convicted and never sent to prison in the sense that they were brought before a proper court of law and sentenced. That should be made clear over and over again. But the sad thing is—

Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the hon. Member concede that one of the paradoxical things in this situation is that there is a widespread acknowledgement among the broad mass of the people on all sides of the communities in Northern Ireland that the people who were interned were interned without the due process of law, and to let them out is an acceptance of the rule of law prevailing?

Rev. Ian Paisley: In large measure many people would agree with the hon. Member on that. The sad thing is, and I can understand my right hon. Friend's difficulty, that since the de-escalation of internment there has been an escalation of violence. That is the tragedy of the situation. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend lets these men out and the following night people are shot and killed and bombs go off, immediately the people of Northern Ireland, because of their frustration, turn on my right hon. Friend and accuse him of releasing the bombers and the murderers.
Then we have the irresponsibility of Mr. Faulkner, who last Saturday challenged Mr. Whitelaw to tell him whether or not internees he had released on to the streets of Belfast were involved once again in the command structure of the Irish Republican Army. Mr. Faulkner knew that my right hon. Friend had already made that denial in the House and that he had no evidence that these people had gone back to their subversive activities, if they ever were engaged in subversive activities.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would my hon. Friend explain why every internee who escaped from internment ended up in Dublin at an IRA Press conference.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It was because the escapees knew that Dublin was the only place where they would be safe. Where would an ascapee go but to a sanctuary? If the hon. Gentleman had been interned and knew that south of the Border was a place of safety, he too would be appearing at a Press conference. My hon. Friend has never been in prison, like me, so he has never had the experience.
I must conclude my remarks, because I have taken up too much time and other hon. Members wish to speak. There is no doubt that an inevitable reaction has arisen in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members should not think that Mr. Craig or Mr. Faulkner control the Ulster Defence Associations. Those of us who have followed carefully the propaganda put out by these organisations know that at the weekend they repudiated Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Craig. This is a new development in Northern Ireland and is a reaction against the fact that all people in Northern Ireland are not equally subject to the law.
This is the best definition I would care to give of the "no-go" areas, that there are areas in Northern Ireland where summonses cannot be served, that there are areas of Northern Ireland where the RUC does not go, that there are areas of Northern Ireland where the military goes but does not stay.
It is the imperative duty of the right hon. Gentleman to see that all citizens of Northern Ireland are equal under the law, whether they be Protestant or Roman Catholic, Unionist or Republican. But it is also his duty to see that they are equally subject to the law. Except the right hon. Gentleman by some tangible token in the very near future can impress that upon the whole of Northern Ireland, I tremble to think where the Northern Ireland people will drift.
I would make an appeal beyond the confines of this House to the majority of people in Northern Ireland. If they value their link, if they value their heritage, if they want to preserve the British connection, they can preserve it only as they are prepared to listen to the democratically-elected voice of that people demonstrated in this Parliament. We do not want to take an oath of loyalty to the Government in Ulster. I rigorously opposed the taking of an oath of loyalty to the Government; I have no loyalty to


Brian Faulkner, nor ever had. But let me say this to the people of Northern Ireland. To preserve the link, let them not say, "We will be loyal to ourselves. We will be loyal to our own interests." Let them be loyal to the union, for in the preservation of that union will be their salvation.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The House will accept that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has spoken with great sincerity and honesty, and indeed responsibility. Above all, he has spoken with a great deal of courage, in that he said some things tonight which will not be very well received by those who supported him at the poll in his election to this House, particularly in relation to his sentiments about internment in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State said in opening the debate that 10 weeks was too short a time to hope to erase all the suspicions, fears and hatreds that had been built up in Northern Ireland over three or four centuries. I agree with him, but he should recognise that we have just passed through one of the worst weeks we have had since he took over control of Northern Ireland affairs. Even taking into account the week of internment, which brought with it the loss of so many lives. I believe that last week was even more dangerous, because now we can see all the aspects of a clear sectarian confrontation taking place between the communities in Northern Ireland.
Over the past five or six weeks people have died on the streets of Northern Ireland not because they were members of the IRA or the Unionist Party but simply because they were either Catholics or Protestants. That is the very real danger that faces the House and the whole Northern Ireland community. Having represented a constituency in this House for a number of years, I have never felt as pessimistic as I do now. If my voice, allied with that of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, can be listened to, I will use the House as a forum to appeal to everyone in Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, to be very careful that during the next few days they are not used by evil forces. If they allow themselves to be so used, Northern Ireland will face a tragic catastrophe this weekend. Again I wish to repeat that this is one

of the most dangerous weeks we have had in the history of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Can I appeal to the hon. Gentleman—I recognise the sincerity of what he is saying—to recognise that a very major contribution which could be made by his party towards improving the atmosphere would be to deal distinctly with the campaign of civil disobedience? That would strike a tremendous chord of response.

Mr. Fitt: I hope to have the opportunity of explaining our attitude towards civil disobedience later on.
As the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) pointed out, there is a good deal of fear in the Protestant community now that they may be forced against their will into a united Ireland. I also point out that within a Catholic minority there is now the belief that the initiative as such from Westminster is beginning to show signs of failure. Over these past weeks, there have been many murders in Northern Ireland. The usual tactic has been for a car to draw up and for the occupants to shoot someone at a particular point because he was a Catholic.
We believe—and it has been reported in the Daily Mirror and in many other journals here in Britain—that there is in fact an assassination squad operating from the Unionist side of the political divide. Those who have lost their lives were not people involved in any way in politics. They were men and women, old and young, boys and girls, and they were all Catholic minority people. They were all victims of a campaign to try to shoot the Catholic minority into an acceptance of the present Unionist diktat in Northern Ireland.
It must be readily understood that there are very real fears. The Minister of State for Defence is now in the Chamber and I say to him that within the past five or six weeks we have seen a sinister and ominous build-up of what can only be described as an illegal force in Northern Ireland—the Ulster Defence Association. The Catholic minority will say that when the IRA first began to operate, when its members wore paramilitary uniforms and masks, as they did in Derry and in Belfast, the police and the security forces took action to prevent those activities taking place, but that


over the past five or six weeks no action has been taken by the security forces to charge members of the UDA—whether it would be possible to do so or not is again a matter for the Government. The IRA has been banned under the Special Powers Act. I am not advocating an extension of the Act. I want to see it abolished. But there must be some legislation which could prevent what I have described already as a sinister and ominous build-up.
Does the Secretary of State really believe that there are no arms available within the Unionist community? We already know that 103,000 licensed weapons are available in Northern Ireland. When I hear the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), talk about why the Army should go into areas where it believes there are guns, I would point out to him that the Army has already done so. It has raided almost every Catholic ghetto in its search for illegal arms. But I think that the Army is not completely unaware that vast arsenals of arms are already hidden in the Unionist Protestant ghettoes.
One can quite readily understand in this situation the fear which exists within the minds of the Catholic community that they have been completely disarmed by the Army, that they are now left open to an attack from the forces of extreme Unionism. Indeed, last night, in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills)—I know that he would disapprove of what took place there—80 families were forced to leave the area. They were protected by the Army. I have no hesitation in saying that had the Army not been there last night the area would have been burnt to the ground. The Army protected these families and at present they are in Girdwood Park, still under the protection of the Army, and efforts are being made; to find them alternative accommodation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the area to which I think he is referring, the Manor Street and the Dargle Street area, a young man was shot dead by the Army? Is he aware that that young man had been shot previously by terrorist forces and had lost aleg, that that young man was simply

walking down the street with a stick in his hand, that there was not only a confrontation between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics but a confrontation with the Army in which an innocent young man, who happened to be a Protestant, also suffered? The suffering is not one-sided.

Mr. Fitt: At the moment no one knows whether that young man was engaged in using illegal arms. The Army claims that he was. Those who were there say he was not. Exactly the same thing has happened scores of times within the Catholic minority community where the Army has claimed it had been involved with someone illegally using arms but when subsequently there was no proof of that. For example, in Derry 13 people were killed and the Widgery Tribunal was unable to prove that they were engaged in the illegal use of arms. On the day that they were shot the Army was issuing a statement saying that they were engaged in such activities. I do not think that we can draw any conclusions from this case.
If the Army was guilty, again, of another grievous mistake in the killing of this young boy it is no reason why the Protestant community should attempt to burn down the homes of the Catholics in the area. This is the fear that exists. In today's News Letter, which is certainly not a supporter of the SDLP—I have it here and I am sure that it has been drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State—members of the UDA are reported to have held up the British Army. The soldiers had their arms taken away and their vehicles were commandeered and used to build barricades. The photographs are there. Why was it that the British Army did not at least resist the activities of these illegal forces? There is no doubt that these men were held up and their vehicles taken from them.
In the Springmartin area where there has been such conflict in recent weeks I know for a fact, and I am prepared to give the information to the Minister of State for Defence, that a British soldier was held up recently in that Unionist area and relieved of his SLR and of his ammunition. I can give the facts, the dates and the times. Why did the British Army not go into Springmartin and try to find those who were responsible for


this and retrieve the weapon? It did not. Within the minds of the Catholic community there is the belief that there is this active co-operation between the security forces, including the British Army and the police, and the illegal forces in those areas, with no action being taken against such forces. At the same time the activities of the security forces are centred in the Catholic minority areas. As a result there is great discontent.
The incident I mentioned happened only last night, but throughout Northern Ireland in the past few weeks there must have been at least 1,000—that is no exaggeration—Catholic people who have been forced to leave their homes as a result of intimidation. Many of them had spent their life savings on the deposit for a house and were paying off a mortgage but absolutely no provision was made for compensating these people. In my constituency of Belfast, West over the past three or four weeks at least 200 young girls who worked in factories in the tailoring industry in Donegal Road have been told by members of the UDA and the Ulster Democratic Movement not to come back to their place of employment.
They received no redundancy payments because they did not qualify for them; they have no job, yet this has not been made public. It is quite possible to understand the bitter feelings of resentment and frustration in the homes where this has happened, particularly when in many cases the mother was the breadwinner and hers were the only wages in a house.
What I want to say to the Secretary of State—this is the most important thing I shall have to say tonight—is, let him be under no doubt as to where he stands in relation to the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Brian Faulkner. The former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is dedicated at this present moment in time to ensuring that the Whitelaw initiative fails. He is dedicated to bringing about such a situation. He is quite prepared to lead a Protestant backlash in arms to ensure that the initiative promulgated by the Conservative Government is brought tumbling to the ground.
Let the Secretary of State be under no illusion. At the present moment, I have it from unimpeachable sources, the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is doing his damnedest trying to create a left-wing backlash. He has has personal contact with many Members of the other side of the House. He is going to maintain this pressure in the hope that he will be able to defeat the Conservative Party and so bring about discontent in the ranks of the Government. He believes that then they will be forced into the position of creating Stormont once again.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Would the hon. Member who is so bent on attacking Mr. Faulkner consider what he might do greatly to assist the environment in Northern Ireland at the moment if he were prepared to say that the barriers of the Roman Catholics should be brought down at this present stage before next weekend? If he were to do that he would make a really great contribution which, I am sure, would do more good than his attack on Mr. Brian Faulkner. That is what we should like to hear from him, rather than his attack on Mr. Faulkner. That would be a contribution to peace.

Mr. Fitt: I recognise that many hon. Members want to take part in this debate and I am certainly not going to waste time replying to the assinine point of the interjection by the hon. Member who has not in fact heard what I have been saying.
When the Stormont régime was brought to an end, and the Conservative Government brought that initiative in Northern Ireland which meant the end of Stormont, I was one who said then, and I have said it repeatedly ever since, that the campaign of violence should be brought to an end. I have never believed that the campaign of violence, waged as it was by elements in Northern Ireland, could in any way advance by one single second the unity of Ireland or bring about the achievement of their political aims. I do not think there is anyone in this House or outside who can question the bona fides of where I stand in relation to violence. Mr. Brian Falkner, the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, is interested only in violence, because if violence continues then it will prove that he was right in


introducing internment and introducing all the other oppressive measures which he introduced.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I do not wish to raise heat in the debate but I want entirely to repudiate what the hon. Member has said in relation to Mr. Faulkner, and I want to place on record that Mr. Faulkner has said, and I repeat it, and it has been my view, as it is now, that we have a vested interest in the success of the initiative, but we have the very gravest doubts whether the criterion on which it is based gives it a hope.

Mr. Fitt: I was not making my remarks to the hon. Gentleman. I was directing them to the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
One has only to look, even from this side of the water, at the galaxy of talent there was at Banbridge last Saturday—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell); a former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Lord Brookeborough, who certainly did not enhance his reputation by the repressive steps which he took in his 20 years as Prune Minister of Northern Ireland; Mr. William Craig, the leader of Vanguard; and Mr. Faulkner, the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—every one seeking to attack, probably for different reasons, the initiative promulgated by the Conservative Government, but every single one of them trying to defeat the initiative which is now in the hands of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
It must be quite clear that there are people in Northern Ireland within the Unionist Party who are deliberately engaged in making the initiative a failure, and there are such people in this country too. Whether he likes it or not, the Secretary of State may be forced to the conclusion that in the onerous responsibilities he has undertaken he has more friends on this side of the House than on his own side—

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has fallen into a confusion. I spoke and voted in this House against the legislation at the end of March. I have repeatedly given my reasons both here and outside for believing that what is called "the initiative" will fail. The hon. Gentleman

should not confuse that with either wishing it to fail or promoting or encouraging anything which would bring about its failure. That is the contrast, and that is the confusion.

Mr. Fitt: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not too well versed in the thinking of the people of Northern Ireland. In recent months he has become a constant visitor to Northern Ireland and people are wondering why he is evincing such an interest in Northern Ireland affairs. In the minds of the people of Northern Ireland every remark he has made since he began to take this interest is calculated as an attempt to defeat the initiative. That is the only interpretation which can be put on the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. I warn him—not in a hostile way—that he will have to accept the great responsibility which will be his if and when Ireland slides into civil war. He will be responsible because of the remarks he has made.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) wants to be absolutely fair. It is only right that the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) should be reported in the House because they were completely against what was said by Mr. Craig on the platform. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Loyalty to what? Union with what? The answer is not loyalty to Ulster, nor Ulster to yourselves. The answer is not the union of these six counties, nor union among yourselves. The answer is loyalty to the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
I think the hon. Member for Belfast, West will agree that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland agree with those remarks. But Mr. Craig said something completely different. He said that he believed over the next two or three weeks—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made his speech. An intervention should not be unduly long.

Mr. Fitt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. All I can say to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is that he should choose his company better. There is an old saying


that birds of a feather flock together and there were some queer birds on that platform.
The Secretary of State said in answer to a Question of mine last week that he had initiated investigations into the activities of certain Special Branch officers against whom allegations had been made in relation to the ill-treatment and torture of detainees. I have since found out—and again I am sure of my sources—that the person carrying out the investigation under the aegis of the Secretary of State is not permitted to meet or to question the Special Branch officer of whom the allegations are made. All he can do is speak to the superior officer of that Special Branch officer who will question or interrogate the Special Branch officer and report back to the person carrying out the investigation who will in turn report back to the Secretary of State. This means that the superintendent of the RUC Special Branch who has gone through the ranks in the same force is questioning one of his own officers.
It is the superintendent who has made a report to the Secretary of State and the only answer he can expect is "Not guilty". If the Secretary of State is intent on carrying out impartial investigations into allegations made against members of the Special Branch in Northern Ireland, he should make certain that the person to whom he delegates that responsibility has an opportunity to interrogate the officer concerned.
It does not seem that any steps can be taken in the next two or three weeks to de-escalate the tension which exists in Northern Ireland. I wish I had the time to mention the economic deprivation in my area and to stress that it has the highest unemployment rate in the City of Belfast. The discontent in Ballymurphy has been brought about because of the fact that between 45 and 50 per cent. of the males in the area have been unemployed for 5 to 10 years. Throughout the whole of Northern Ireland, and particularly in my own constituency, there is great discontent, and I believe that cogent measures must be taken by the Secretary of State to try to bring employment into these areas which have been so economically deprived in the past.
I wish the Secretary of State well in the onerous task he has undertaken. I

wish to make it clear that I do not support anybody who is engaged in a campaign of violence. I certainly include in my remarks the Provisional IRA and the threats of violence which come from the Unionist side, from UDA and Vanguard.
I believe that the Official IRA should be given a little commendation for calling off the campaign of violence when it recognised that it was leading the two communities into a sectarian confrontation, and possibly into a civil war. I have no hesitation in saying that it should be commended in the steps which it took at that time.
The Secretary of State, over the next weekend, undoubtedly will be living in a dangerous time. I was asked whether it would be possible for me to call off the campaign of civil disobedience. It was obviously believed that if this happened it would bring an end to the campaign of violence. I suggest that it would do no such thing. I have already said that there are those in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland who are intent on keeping this going in the hope that it will bring Stormont back into existence.
I hope that we shall be given the opportunity to engage in political discussions when internment is brought to an end. I shall not elaborate on the problem of internment, but I wish to pose one question to the Secretary of State. Obviously he knows that a great feeling of discontent exists in the majority Unionist community. Has this influenced him in any way in his policy of internment? Have the phased releases been brought to an end because of the threat of a Unionist backlash, or will he continue with the releases? There are rumours circulating within the Catholic minority that because of pressures built up in the UDA and Vanguard movements the Secretary of State will find himself unable to release further internees. I hope that this is not so since it will serve only to increase tension.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has made many highly controversial statements, but the House of Commons is none the worse for controversy, and I did not disagree with all that he said. I was surprised that he was so pessimistic, because I see as one optimistic


feature in the situation the hon. Gentleman's co-operation with my right hon. Friend, as a result of the Governments policy.
I must admit that my last visit to Belfast was a depressing experience. It was like a city at war, as compared with earlier visits at Easter and Christmas. But much more serious than the outward evidence of violence is the increasing bitterness and hostility of the Protestant majority.
We all know that my right hon. Friend's policy of conciliation has had considerable successes in securing the greater co-operation of the hon. Gentleman's SDLP, a cease-fire by the official IRA, a reaction against violence by the women in the Bogside, the Creggan and Andersonstown, and the improved posture of Mr. Lynch with regard to the IRA. All these are very hopeful developments which I do not believe could have been achieved if the Stormont Government had still been in existence. To that extent I agree with what the hon. Member for Belfast, West said. A gesture of good will from the moderate Protestant leadership would be very helpful indeed, because the danger now is the mood of the majority, which is angrier than I have ever seen it before.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) pointed out, the patience and restraint of the Protestants in the recent past has been remarkable. Their fears and frustrations today are very understandable. But hitherto moderate, liberal-minded men and women are now becoming very hard line. The most worrying feature of all is their lack of trust in the word of British Ministers. The catch-phrase, repeated again and again, is, "We have been sold down the river." It is a meaningless, parrot sort of phrase, but it is believed even by normally sensible people, and it is worrying.
Many Protestants think that our ultimate policy is the unification of all Ireland by stealth and deception, without their consent. Their fears are completely groundless, but they are felt sincerely. There is a sense; of real outrage over the "no-go" areas in Londonderry. But they are not anew problem, as my right hon. Friend said. There has not been an RUC police station in the Bogside for years.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that if we tried to clear the area by military force tomorrow there would be such an appalling loss of life as to shock the world and, moreover, to kill for years the hope of community reconciliation. I beg the Vanguard Movement and the Ulster Defence Association to bear that aspect in mind. I pray that Mr. Craig and his friends have not created organisations which they can no longer control. I beg the Protestants to trust the Government to restore law and order in Londonderry as soon as it can possibly be done and to believe that it cannot be done by military action alone. It is asking a lot of the Protestants to be patient in the face of great provocation, but surely it is not asking too much if the prize is peace in the Province of Ulster.
If the Protestants do not believe us, what alternative is open to them? Ulster is part of Britain, and a UDI would be totally unrealistic. The only alternative to the success of my right hon. Friend's policies is civil war in Northern Ireland. I regret that I do not think that that prospect is reduced in any way by the sort of speech made in County Down at the weekend by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I implore him to consider whether he is not venturing into very deep and dangerous waters. As I read it in the reported version, his speech was not only a direct, rather caustic attack upon Government policy, but almost an incitement to Protestant action. That is a very dangerous and irresponsible line to take, because it brings nearer the appalling prospect of civil war in part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Powell: As my hon. Friend did not take the trouble to obtain a copy of what I said I shall hand him a copy, and he can point to the passage which he has in mind which contains any suggestion whatsoever of an encouragement to violence.

Mr. Fisher: Naturally I have not seen and could not have seen—

Mr. Powell: In those circumstances, my hon. Friend should not make such an accusation.

Mr. Fisher: In accordance with our normal conventions I warned my right


hon. Friend that I should be critical of his speech in this debate, but he did not send me the full speech and I had to rely on a newspaper report. If I have in any way misquoted anything that my right hon. Friend said, of course I withdraw it immediately, but as far as one could judge from the report in the Press the atmosphere of his speech in County Down was unhelpful in the context of the future peace and prosperity of the Province.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is entitled to say what he thinks is helpful or unhelpful. I wish to assure him—and he will accept this from me—that nothing in what I said could be construed in any way whatsoever as an incitement to violence or to defiance of the law. The whole of the speech was beamed in the opposite direction.

Mr. Fisher: We must not continue with this argument. I have said that if I misquoted my right hon. Friend I would withdraw my statement. I promised that I should be short, and I do not want to enter into a great controversy on this issue.
As one who has a real interest and stake in Northern Ireland, I beg my fellow Protestants in Ulster to believe in the good faith of British Ministers. I beg them to believe that they will not be let down by my right hon. Friend. I beg them to believe that Ulster is at the top of every Cabinet agenda and that not only my right hon. Friend but his junior Ministers and senior civil servants—and I know this from talking to them—have acquired a real understanding of this problem and a sincere determination to resolve it.
Lastly, may I, with respect say something to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? It would be a reassurance to the majority if he could pay another visit to the Province. I asked him to do so when we had a two-day debate, I think last November. He paid a short visit just before Christmas, but it was very short, and it was six months ago. The people of Ulster, as I was made aware when I was there at Whitsun, notice that he has time to go to Denmark and Japan, and they would like to see him in the only part of the United Kingdom which is in strife and turmoil. An

early visit by him would give a certain amount of additional confidence to the Protestants and would to that extent be helpful.
There is now a slender hope of success in Northern Ireland, as a result of my right hon. Friend's policies. I put it no higher than that. There is a slim hope of success, but there will be no hope at all of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland if these policies fail.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: We have just heard the second gloomy, despondent speech in a row, with very little hope to it.
As a result of his visit, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) has voiced the fears of the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland that the British Government's policy, whether we like it or not, and whether they like it or not, is to try by stealth to engineer—that was the phrase quoted by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—Northern Ireland into some kind of united Ireland.
I am not endeavouring to engineer Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. I do not believe that the British Government are trying to do that. I do not believe that the official Opposition in this country want to do that. But there are many of us—I suspect on both sides of the House—who, after the history of the last 50 years, believe that it is a tragedy that Northern and Southern Ireland are not united. We want them to be united. I believe in one nation in Ireland, but I have no intention of trying to force them into it. I do not believe that we ought to try to do this by stealth, and I hope that there is no one on either side who is trying to do it by stealth.
In view of Irish history, no one starts from scratch. We all carry a sense of history, and on no subject do we have a stronger sense of history than on the whole matter of Ireland. There are different views on Ireland. The view that we take of the past will inevitably determine the view that we take of the present and, indeed, of the future. My view is quite clear, and I put it on record particularly in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Surbiton. Ireland always was one nation, and as one nation


it was troublesome to Britain. We settled it with loyalists to teach the natives a lesson, and we created the racial as well as the religious divide where there had been none before.
At the turn of the century, the loyalist, non-Celtic population was a small minority. It did not want unity, but it would not have fought to avoid unity, whatever may be the case now. This House took that minority's view fully into account in its vote at the time, when it voted by a majority of about 130 for Home Rule; even leaving out the Irish Members, the majority was more than 100. We would all agree that that was a substantial majority.
The vote of that House would have been implemented then, by and large peacefully, but for one thing—the desire of the Conservative Party of the time to bring down the Liberal Government. They took the best tool to hand for the task. They dispatched a Conservative Front Bencher, Carson, to whip up the bitterness and bigotry which undoubtedly existed then and certainly exists now. The purpose of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition was to set aside by non-constitutional action what they could not defeat by constitutional action. It is a grim political irony that it is the Conservative Party that now has to deal with the appalling mess left behind by the foul actions of its predecessors.
To come up to date, I regard Ireland as essentially one nation. It therefore follows that I believe that our whole policy should be directed towards removing the barriers in the minds of Irishmen, and in the minds of Northern Irishmen too, which exist against the creation of one Ireland.
I am open about that, and I do not want to do it in any sense by stealth. I am of course aware of the Secretary of State's warning today. I accept that unity cannot be achieved except by agreement. There is no question of forcing them into any spurious unity. I therefore join the right hon. Gentleman in the guarantee which I am sure is given by all Members of the House of all political persuasions, that of course no British Government will ever force Northern Ireland into a united Ireland.
The violence which has been spoken of tonight, the violence that we have seen on our television screens and which many hon. Members have experienced and have seen for themselves, is appalling and horrifying. I understand that those who are suffering from it at first hand do not perhaps place any great hope in constitution-mongering. But I believe that the only long-term hope is for the institutions of democracy and it is towards those institutions that we have to turn. It is in those that we have to have confidence. We have to tailor them for the future, bearing in mind the feelings and the bitterness which we have around us now.
I want to look beyond the violence—I am certain that it will come to an end—and consider the rest of the Government's package. It is absolutely useless to have the local government elections if they are based on single-member wards with the x factor voting. They can only be of purpose in righting the appalling shambles and bitterness in Northern Ireland if they are elections by proportional representation.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go beyond the package that he has already introduced, such as it is, and ensure that these elections are held this autumn—the sooner the better—but that they are held by means of proportional representation. I hope that he will go even further in his thinking and recognise that, when the time comes to bring back some kind of institutional democracy in Northern Ireland, whether of a GLC-type or some form of Northern Ireland Parliament, anything that looks remotely like a Government in Northern Ireland must also be a multi-party Government. It is no use having proportional representation to elect whatever parliamentary institution there is. There must be proportional representation for selecting the Government of the day.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the initiatives he has taken so far. He has lived up to the highest hopes which were expressed by the Leader of the Liberal Party when his appointment was announced. We did not expect miracles but we support what he has done. The action on internment is a start. It is not far enough for some of us, but it is at least a start. The right hon. Gentleman must be the best judge of


that at present. I remind him of one promise to us when we moved the Amendment to repeal the Special Powers Act a little while ago. I shall not quote him in detail because I do not have time. On 29th March, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I cannot go as far as that. I will review the Act and, when I have done so, I will report to the House."—[Official Report, 29th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 569.]
The Secretary of State knows perfectly well the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the Special Powers Act. We want it repealed. We want him to act through the normal process of law which is available to the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that tonight we shall hear something of the Government's intentions regarding the Special Powers Act.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: This evening I have come direct from Belfast—a city that has faced much trouble and turmoil over the weekend—to speak of the situation there as I see it. I am sorry to say that I found little in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which would encourage my constituents, or make their burden lighter.
I join with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in saying that in this debate one speaks with considerable pessimism. By a majority of some 480, on 28th March the House took a decision to go for direct rule. Having seen some of the difficulties and problems that that has brought, I ask: is the House certain that that decision was right? I believe that my right hon. Friend has been given an impossible brief. One sees this as the situation develops. At Question Time five or six weeks ago, in no spirit of hostility I asked my right hon. Friend whether he felt that he had earned the confidence and respect of the majority. I felt that the answer to that question was, "No".
Today there is much that one can say about the situation, but time is limited. One could talk of the moves for peace. There is a tremendous desire for peace among the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. One could talk of the limited but welcome response from the Catholic community. I could talk of the limited but welcome response from

Mr. Lynch. However, the vital point with which I wish to deal is the extent to which the initiative and what has happened since has had the effect, for the majority, of destroying normal political activity.
On 24th March the Prime Minister said that the aim of the initiative was to encourage "the moderates". I commented then that the effect of the initiative was to act as "a recruiting sergeant for the Vanguard Movement". Was I right or wrong?
I am bitterly in despair at present. The effect of this activity by the Government and the anger and frustration that we saw boiling up over the weekend show very clearly that people are moving outside the political arena. Perhaps they have lost faith in myself and all other hon. Members as their political representatives and are moving to events on the street. That spells ruin for Northern Ireland if it is persisted in. I greatly regret the lack of faith and trust in democracy that we have seen develop. That is what the House is now seeing happen. If right hon. and hon. Members bury their heads in the sand, the situation will become even more grim over the next few weeks.
I give some advice to my right hon. Friend as to how it is possible for him once more to return to a situation where he can gain the confidence of the majority. First, it is essential that the Government and the House should show clearly that they recognise the strain under which the people of Northern Ireland are suffering and give them sympathy, encouragement and understanding in the situation. We do not want platitudes; we want real sympathy and support.
Secondly, there is the question of the extent to which we believe in Northern Ireland that we are being kept out on a limb. So many matters are being kept in cold storage. This must be ended. The Government cannot keep open all their political options. They must give clear information as to the way in which they see the areas of negotiations, the limitations and the extent of the opportunities for the renewal of a regional Parliament. They cannot keep the question of the referendum in cold storage. Too many options are being kept open


by the Government, and that is causing uncertainty.
Thirdly, there is the question of the security of the Army. There is no doubt that the Army is operating on a low key or low profile basis. The position is deteriorating as the IRA is able to reform and regroup. That is not the way to bring back peace. The Army must operate on a much more positive basis.
Fourthly, I welcome what my right hon. Friend said this evening, namely, that there is no question of forcing the people of Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That cannot be repeated too often. It is vital that the majority should be constantly reminded of that statement The statement made in a radio interview yesterday by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) as to the "engineering of the situation, towards ending partition is the kind of thing that makes people apprehensive. They say, "The Westminster Parliament will not force us out of the United Kingdom, but what will be the position tomorrow?" I put the question, but if we are to give confidence to the majority there must be no doubt on that matter. I welcome what has been said on that point.

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will have heard what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said officially for the Opposition. I regard the fact that I said it and that the hon. Member for Leeds, South said it as immensely important. All that I am asking, and I am entitled to ask, is that every single right hon. and hon. Member who goes over to Northern Ireland says that, and does not try to cast aspersions on my honesty and standing on this matter

Mr. Mills: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has said that. He emphasises the point. I was glad as well for what the hon. Member for Leeds. South said.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I spoke for the Opposition, and I spoke firmly and clearly. I meant what I said, and that is it.

Mr. Mills: I accept that point from the hon. Member for Leeds,

South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). I am glad that the matter is firmly and clearly on the record. It cannot be said too often by both Front Benches.
Fifthly and lastly, we must try to move into the arena of political discussion. The SDLP have an important rôle to play, particularly in the rent and rate strike. It would be an enormous gesture to start the ball rolling.
Equally important is that Government Ministers and all hon. Members should show the people of Northern Ireland that they have both their sympathy, their understanding and their support. We must try to rebuild the shattered confidence that we see so gravely fractured at this moment.

9.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): The debate this evening has taken place under a shadow of a weekend of violence which has caused much comment throughout the evening in many speeches. The debate has shown some new common ground but has once again shown some deep differences between hon. Members on both sides of the House about what is happening and what should happen.
It was suggested at the beginning that I should speak on economic affairs, and I am hoping a little later in another debate to go into some detail on economic and industrial questions.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I spend the few remaining minutes before 10 o'clock trying to answer as many as possible of the queries and questions which have been put by hon. Members on both sides. I will try not to miss out any points.
After my right hon. Friend had spoken we heard a speech by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) who talked about a crash programme of construction and training and the trade union movement in Northern Ireland.
I agree strongly with what the hon. Gentleman said about the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. Its leaders deserve the highest praise for the rôle that they have played and are playing in the incredibly difficult situation facing them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about a crash programme of construction, but it is worth bearing in mind that crash programmers, particularly where heavy investment is concerned, are not the quickest or best way of producing jobs. This is a difficulty which must be faced. The overall development programme for 1970–75 is well advanced. We have plans to look at ways of accelerating it, but we have to be wary of suddenly trying to switch on the various industrial programmers.
I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman about training. I hope to be in a position to announce something shortly which will meet some of the hopes he expressed.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asked a number of questions. First, he asked what was being and could be done about re-housing. The housing executive is now in operation. It acts extremely swiftly these days. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, for instance, 13 families have already been offered re-housing and arrangements have been made after last night's disturbances. That is an example of the speed with which the housing executive is able to operate.
The hon. Gentleman asked about foreign gunmen and whether we had any evidence about them. We have no hard evidence. The method of operation of certain snipers which has been observed gives rise for suspicion, but we have no hard evidence on that matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Border control. This matter has been raised before. Control has been toughened. Many more vehicles are being searched. However, the basic difficulty remains. The Border is virtually uncloseable to those who wish to pass over it on secret, hidden missions at night on unidentified roads or across fields. However, as I said, control has been toughened. I cannot go into the precise methods, because they are covered by the Security Forces' necessary discretion, but there has been some toughening, and more vehicle searching takes place than hitherto.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) asked about internment,

which was answered there and then by my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman asked about proportional representation, or some variant of it. This matter, which has been raised by other hon. Members as well, has been discussed and put forward in various forms to my right hon. Friend and is being considered. A number of points of the kind which have been made in the debate have been put to my right hon. Friend concerning that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies), who has great experience of these matters and spoke with authority, reminded us that Ulster Members on both sides of the House live close to the danger in Northern Ireland and that it is easy for us to stand back and preach and not realise the intense atmosphere of tension which surrounds hon. Members who have to return to their constituencies in Northern Ireland at the weekend. Some of us have had a little taste of that tension and what it is like to live with it. However, we must bear in mind that the conditions which hon. Members from Northern Ireland have to face and live in must necessarily condition their views.
My hon. Friend asked specifically about recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. At present it is 296 below establishment. This is just a shade up on 1st January when it was at a strength of 4,083. Its strength now is 4,130, but it is still below establishment. Moves have been announced by my right hon. Friend for stepping up publicity for a more effective recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), speaking on behalf of the Opposition, gave general support, which is welcome, to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the question of debt repayment. My right hon. Friend is looking forward with interest to receiving the views and comments of Professor Townsend when the opportunity arises, which I believe will be soon.
The hon. Gentleman then said that the time had come for discussion. We welcome that. This point has been rightly made. The hon. Gentleman talked about a Green Paper, on which I am not so sure.


On the whole, we take the view that the initiative must come from the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps in a way there are already too many pieces of paper and pamphlets floating about the place. The next stage possibly lies elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Unionists must be given reassurance. My right hon. Friend pointed just now to the fact that on behalf of the Government he had followed my right hon. Friend in giving that assurance. This cannot be said too often. It has been said by my right hon. Friend again and again. Of course Ulster in not to be bundled into a united Ireland against the wishes of the majority. That will not be countenanced. The Government have said that again and again. Indeed, it is enshrined and embodied in the law under which we govern. The people of Ulster are not expendable. Suggestions that they are or are thought to be by us are misleading and false. That must be said, as it was said at the beginning of the debate and in the middle of the debate; and now let it be said again, because it is the position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) stated his views in his usual trenchant style and gave some interesting examples of support and the ways in which his views are developing. I do not think that my hon. Friend asked any questions. I have no doubt that later on this evening he will have many detailed questions to ask me.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke of the pessimism in the situation that has developed over the weekend. This was echoed elsewhere, alas. The hon. Gentleman spoke about action against the Ulster Defence Association. He must be realistic about this. It is the policy to avoid unnecessary confrontations. That is the policy in relation to both sides, so to speak. There is a temptation, which must be resisted, to have cake and to eat it, or to demand that what goes for one side should not go for the other. If barrier obstructions are placed in the way of an ambulance or other essential service, the barriers come down. That is understood. That has been done in operations over the last few days.
The hon. Gentleman then made allegations as to allegations against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, if that is the right way to put it—more precisely about the methods used to investigate allegations. I will bring these to the notice of my right hon. Friend, who had slipped out of the House at that moment. I am sure that the allegations will be closely studied.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) spoke movingly about the very real fears of the majority, which are widespread. My hon. Friend has special experience of this. He reminded us that these fears are groundless. I can only repeat the words which have been repeated again and again—that no change will be made without the express support of the majority. The people of Ulster are not expendable. Let that be made absolutely clear. Let those who would argue otherwise state their reasons.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) asked about the Special Powers Act review. My right hon. Friend is reviewing this Act and he will report. That is all that I can say at this hour, and indeed it is practically all that I have time to say.
The last hon. Member to speak was my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who has spoken at times with great wisdom and understanding in the very difficult situation in which he and his hon. Friends find themselves. My hon. Friend spoke of his despair. This is something which we should all note at this time. For all the talk of violence and for all the note of despair that one or two hon. Members have echoed this evening a great deal is going on and is steadily progressing in Ulster.
For example, a workable and effective Administration has been established and is now operating, thanks very largely to the superb Northern Ireland Civil Service which has truly shown administrative excellence under immensely difficult conditions. Major programmers of economic development have been speeded forward. A far-reaching programme of local government reform is being picked up and taken forward. Detailed measures for bringing work and activities to the areas of highest unemployment and deepest poverty are being swiftly hammered out.


These are the positive things that are happening.
Although our concern here is with the violence of today, our eyes are on the Ulster of tomorrow—strong, prosperous,

peaceful and stable. That is the goal that can and will be attained.

Question, That this House do now adjourn, put and negatived.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EXPORTED ANIMALS)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: For any hon. Members who were not here earlier today I should explain that there are three orders to be discussed, one dealing with the export of animals, which is fairly narrow, one dealing with employers' liability, which is very narrow, and the third, the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order on which there can be a pretty wide discussion. Therefore, if the House should decide to take the first two orders fairly quickly there can be a wide debate until 2.30 a.m. according to the Business Motion which has been approved.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): As you have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, it is intended to give the House this evening the opportunity of a wide-ranging debate up to the maximum time available for the three orders. The procedure that is in mind is that I should speak now on all the orders, formally moving the order relating to the export of animals compensation, and after that it will be open to the House to raise topics within the scope of all three orders.

Mr. Speaker: I think there is some misunderstanding. I thought that the Under-Secretary was to have moved the first order dealing with the export of animals so that we could get rid of it as quickly as possible in the interests of the House, then deal with the second order, and on the third order he was to have made his much more substantial speech.

Mr. Howell: I will gladly proceed in that way if that is the wish of the House. The first two orders are very brief and I will speedily speak to those, always ready to go into detail if necessary.
I beg to move,
That the Exported Animals (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.
The order gives effect to provisions contained in a Bill at Stormont designed to extend the scope of the Exported Animals (Compensation) Act (Northern

Ireland), 1952, to provide for compensation in respect of animals lost through maritime peril whilst being shipped from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The order also places a limit on the amount of compensation payable on any one animal under the 1952 Act. The Bill at Stormont had passed through all stages in the House of Commons.
Livestock exporters from Northern Ireland were protected by existing legislation only in respect of losses through outbreaks of foot and mouth disease affecting a port in Great Britain. The compensation fund is self-supporting through levies paid by livestock shippers. Existing legislation had no limit as to amount, which was left to the discretion of the trustees. The order proposes a limit of £200 per head, which seems a sensible figure.
The other major reason for new provisions on compensation derive from losses of cattle at sea, and from the particular case of the sinking of the "Hereford Express" in October, 1970, when 250 cattle were lost. The owners of the cattle, having paid into the compensation fund the levy required by law, found claims for compensation to be outside the scope of that fund, as the powers of the existing Act did not cover such a contingency. The trustees of the compensation fund having considered the case, and having consulted with all interested parties, favour the extension of the fund to cover maritime risks including the retrospective compensation involved in indemnifying the owners of cattle lost on the "Hereford Express".
Although it is unusual to invite the House to endorse this kind of payment, I think it right to follow in this respect the judgment of the trustees, particularly where public money is not involved. It is not, after all, unusual for trustees to be asked, and to agree, to recommend the variation of the terms of a trust to meet changing or special conditions, and that is what I am asking the House to do.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: The order is unusual in that it is a case of a piece of delegated legislation being used to amend original legislation. I make no complaint about that. For the very special circumstances


that prevail in Northern Ireland, the House has seen fit to give some very unusual powers to the Secretary of State. However, Article 3(4) says:
An order made under subsection (3) shall be subject to negative resolution.
Since it is made clear in the interpretation part of the order that the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) applies, I take it that it is a proper reading of the order to suggest that that is a reference to negative resolution by the Stormont Parliament. Therefore, it must be made absolutely clear before the order is approved whether any orders would be made under subsection (3) of the Exported Animals (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) while the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act are in force. If it is correct to interpret the Article as meaning that orders can be made only when they can be subject to negative resolution of Stormont, I assume it is correct to say that no such orders will be made, and that if the Secretary of State wishes to exercise such a power he will do so by Order in Council.
I have noted with special care that the preamble to the order says:
…Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 1(3) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act…".
Section 1(3) makes it very clear that any amendments to law, and, I presume, any other changes in the law in relation to Northern Ireland which flow from them, are subject to Orders in Council in this House. If that is the case, then the provisions of Article 3 of the order cannot apply.
The question results from correspondence between the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Department about the way in which the order should work. In the Department's reply a reference was made to Section 4(4) of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. There is a provision there whereby the Secretary of State may make orders under this power which will be subject to the normal procedure for annulment of statutory instruments by this House, but it is not a binding requirement. It is an option which the Secretary of State may exercise. Therefore, it must be made clear tonight whether, if we approve the

order, the Secretary of State will make orders under article 3 of the order by Order in Council and make them subject to the procedure of this House.
The point may seem a narrow one, but in the period over which the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act may operate we can envisage a number of cases where the procedure being used tonight may be used again, and there would be a requirement for amending the law of Northern Ireland in such a way as to make provision for further delegated legislation to flow in Stormont if Stormont were restored to power. In those circumstances, we must be absolutely clear whether any parliamentary procedure will be applicable to orders which are the body of delegated legislation of Northern Ireland.
I think it is a proper interpretation of at least the spirit of what the Secretary of State said when he introduced the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act that legislation of Northern Ireland would be subject to the scrutiny of this House. I hope that that applies properly to delegated legislation also.
Since reference was made, in correspondence with the Select Committee on this order, to paragraph 4(4) of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, we must be clear as to whether delegated legislation in respect of Northern Ireland, particularly under Section 2(3) of the Act, is to be subject to annulment.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Bill to which this order refers had reached Second Reading stage in Stormont, but because of the decision by the Government to suspend Stormont we are now discussing the matter in the House of Commons. In view of the time that had been given to the matter at Stormont, it is tempting to let it slide here. I do not suggest long discussion, but nevertheless we do have responsibility for Northern Ireland, including its agriculture, and I have several questions to put.
First, bearing in mind the new methods which are being used for the carriage of animals, would it not have been better, now that we are updating the 1952 Act, to extend these provisions to air transport?
Secondly, with reference to the figure of £200 as the maximum compensation in the order, surely it must be a matter of general agreement that the prices of animals, of a certain type at least, are increasing rapidly. Since the levy varies, as I understand it, from cattle to sheep to swine, should not maximum compensation vary accordingly?
Thirdly, can we be told—correspondence would suit—how many claims have been received to date and how many granted?

10.12 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I represent an agricultural constituency, and agriculture represents a very large part of our income in Northern Ireland. The order enables a levy to be imposed on all exporters. While initially this may be a comparatively small sum, we all know from experience that these things have a habit of increasing. People have a habit of expanding their empires, and costs and salaries may increase. Will there be any process of appeal against what might be regarded as exhorbitant increases?
I am sorry that air transport has been excluded, as I understand it. Remote as we are, and feeling, as I do, that air freight will play a significant part in the Northern Ireland economy, we would be happier if we could be assured that this aspect will be taken into consideration, perhaps at a later stage.

10.14 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us why air transport is not incorporated in the order? Is he aware that the Bill which is the subject of the order was withdrawn at Stormont for further consideration of this matter? What has he in mind to bring air transport within the reach of the compensation set out in the order?
Does not the Under-Secretary of State realise that if we do go into the Common Market—which will not be by my vote—air freight will be very important because, instead of being on the periphery of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland will be on the periphery of the Common Market? Therefore, we need compensation to cover air transport of animals.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to hon. Members for the brief comments they have made. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) raised the important procedural point which, as he says, has wider application. He is deeply experienced in these matters and, as he says, these have already been raised in correspondence with my right hon. Friend. His central question was whether regulations made under this order, and by implication he means any order and any regulations of this kind, are to be made subject to the Order in Council procedure. He asks for a reassurance and I am afraid that I am not in a position to give it.
As is made clear in the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, while it is the intention and while it has already proved to be the practice, to bring before this House for Order in Council procedure—whether the urgent procedure or the more normal procedure—the various pieces of legislation which would have come before, and in most cases had gone through the Stormont Parliament, I have to say that so far as regulations under orders which would have been subject to annulment or the negative Resolution procedure in the Stormont Parliament are concerned, these, as was made clear during the debate on the passage of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, are not subject to annulment and negative Resolution procedure in this House. If the hon. Gentleman asks "Why", I suppose that the basic answer is that one Parliament cannot do the work of two.
We are in a temporary position, as the word "temporary" in the Act implies. There would be an obvious practical difficulty, even impossibility, about bringing every regulation made under this order or every other order before the House for annulment. I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks. He raised other related matters which are still the subject of discussion. There are still further issues in this whole area of annulment of regulations and statutory orders and so on which have to be looked at. On that point I cannot give him the general or specific reassurance which he seeks.
As to the question of air perils, raised by the other hon. Members who have spoken, the Bill does not apply to air


perils because only valuable pedigree livestock which will be over the £200 limit travel by air. None travel by air at present. While I fully accept that in future some development of this kind might be necessary—and I will certainly take into account the fact that all Members who have spoken in this debate have raised the same point and therefore I recognise itssignificance—it was not the intention that this order should cover air perils. As for the £200 maximum, this represents the estimated maximum value of commercial stock in the foreseeable future. Again, the situation may change but the figure of £200 is the one that stands at the moment.
I hope that I have met the various points that have been raised. This is, as you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, a small matter. It involves changing the state of the law governing the operation of this trust and does not involve the expenditure of public monies. It is an order which makes sense of things, helps exporters and thereby the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Exported Animals (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY)

10.16 p.m.

The Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment and Compulsory Insurance) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.
This is the second of the lesser, although important orders, before we come to the main one this evening. The order is quite short and I believe wholly non-contentious. The House has already passed almost identical legislation for Great Britain and I hope that it will now support the application of similar arrangements to Northern Ireland. The order stems from a Bill introduced in the Northern Ireland Senate which had passed its Committee stage without amendment before the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued. The Measure was welcomed by all who contributed to the Senate debate. It is supported by the employer and trade union interests in Northern Ireland who were consulted in the preparation of the Bill. I shall, therefore, be as brief as possible in my explanation of its contents and intention.
The order is intended to provide protection for Northern Ireland workers comparable with that available to workers in Britain under the Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act, 1969, and the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act, 1969, both of which originated at Private Members' Bills. Its purpose is, therefore, twofold.
First, it will make Northern Ireland employers responsible for injury to employees caused by defective equipment even though the defect is attributable to the fault of a third party, for example, a manufacturer or supplier. Hitherto an employee seeking compensation for injury in such circumstances has had to claim against the third party. This order transfers the primary responsibility to the actual employer of the person who is injured. In future, therefore, the employee may claim against the employer and if the claim is upheld the employer will have to pay compensation. He may then, of course, take action to recover


from the third party. It will be for the employee to prove that the equipment was defective.
Second, employers in Northern Ireland will be required to maintain insurance against liability for personal injury sustained by employees and arising out of and in the course of their employment. Most employers are already covered for this kind of risk, but the order will make it compulsory.
Third, the order will therefore extend to all employees the protection which is already enjoyed by those who work for employers who have taken out appropriate insurance. It is obviously important that when employees make claims against employers for damages at common law or for breach of statutory duty they should be assured that their claim can be met and that they will not find themselves proceeding against men of straw, and, therefore, unable to secure their full legal rights. The order is intended to achieve that purpose.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Following what you said, Mr. Speaker, that the previous debate would be narrow and that this would be very narrow, I can assure you I shall not detain the House long, but since I had the honour of presenting this provision in a Private Member's Bill I think I might be permitted to say a word or two.
For the benefit of the Under-Secretary of State, and, it may be, for his education, I would point out that many of us from Scotland, particularly those of us on this side of the House, have been reluctant to become too involved in Northern Ireland affairs, but I think we can appreciate what is colloquially known as a Billy and Dan situation. That is part of the education, I am sure, of some hon. Members opposite. They may not appreciate the fact that I regard myself as an agnostic territorial Celtic supporter. That means that I am one of the few who could have played for either Rangers or Celtic. The nearest I got to it, possibly, was playing for Partick Thistle. I mention that merely to illustrate that some of us who could have made a contribution to debates on this matter have been reluctant to engage in Northern Ireland affairs, probably because of the fear

that all we might succeed in doing would be to transfer some of the bother over to Glasgow and the West of Scotland.
However, I think it will be in order for me to make some comments on the first part of this order, and my reason for doing so, apart from the personal one, is that I am often reminded of the fact that the present Home Secretary has repeatedly referred to the need in Northern Ireland to try to get politics on to a normal party basis. I would not expect a leading Conservative to say that what is meant is really that politics should get on to a class basis.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member said he was going to make a very narrow speech. It seems to me to be a remarkably wide one so far.

Mr. Brown: I was just coming to the relevant part. Part II of the order is a useful contribution which affects all employees. I wish there had been more provisions like this in Northern Ireland in the past. In this spirit I commend the order to the House.
Although the Minister has said that the order is made with the approval of and after consultation with both employers and employees, I hope that he will seek the good offices of the trade union movement in the North to publicise the order and to draw it to the attention of the trade union movement in the South who perhaps might be helped to initiate similar legislation.
With those few brief remarks I give the order my full support.

10.25 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome the draft order but I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether, when future legislation comes before the House that is applicable to Northern Ireland, it could be directly applied to Northern Ireland so that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies could take part in the debate on that legislation. I welcome the legislation, and anything that helps the working classes of Northern Ireland will always have my support.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like to clear up a couple of minor points arising from the draft


order, which I welcome. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) referred to the parallel legislation in Great Britain. Provision is made in that legislation for insurance companies which demand very high premiums or refuse to insure customers. In view of the civil disturbances in Northern Ireland, there is anxiety that this question is not adequately covered. Will procedure be provided to fill the gap which may arise? How are Northern Ireland employers to cover high premiums or the refusal to insure?
A minor point arising under paragraph 10 is the difference between the draft order and the original legislation. The original legislation enabled regulations to be made to differentiate between different cases or classes of cases, but there is no comparable provision in the order. Why has this provision been left out? Is such a power covered by the paragraph as it stands, or is the power thought to be unnecessary?

10.28 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: As my colleagues have allocated to me the duty of scrutinising matters which fall within the scope of the Stormont Ministry of Health and Social Services, I should like to make one or two brief points.
The order, unlike some others which have come before us, is being laid in draft form and not under the emergency procedure. It was introduced in the Senate of Northern Ireland but did not come before the Commons in that Parliament and has not therefore been given consideration by the directly elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
In Great Britain the insurance under Part III is usually £2 million or unlimited. Will the same apply to Northern Ireland? I share the curiosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) about the omission from paragraph 10 and I wonder what is the explanation. Should this perhaps be looked at again? I understand that Part III will come into force by Statutory Instrument. It would be helpful if employers could be given notice as to when the compulsory insurance provisions are likely to take effect.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Even this order reveals that there should be some method by which these sort of matters may be looked at on a prior occasion. I know that this matter is being considered, but it points to the fact that if tonight we found something of a minor nature that should be altered, it would be rather late in the day to become involved in it.
What will be the minimum insurance cover permitted by the regulations. We have heard mention of a figure of £2 million in respect of Northern Ireland. Bearing in mind the rise in prices and the value which ought to be put on lives which are lost, I wish to ask whether this figure is large enough to meet the needs of the situation. It is a small amount and I should like to have the Minister's advice.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) for intervening in this debate. He is, as he said, right to claim parentage in matters of this kind. I am glad to receive education from him, as from other hon. Members, on these and other complicated and important matters, and I was grateful for his comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) asked what would happen if insurance was denied or if a company refused to insure an employer. There has been no experience of anything of this kind so far, no similar situation has prevailed on this side of the water, and there are no indications any situation of this sort will arise in Northern Ireland. If it did, one question that might be asked is: how is it that the employer is such a risk that no one would insure him? This might raise the question whether he should be in business at all, and we might have to look at that situation. However, there seems to be no remote possibility that such a situation would arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) reminded us that this order is not being raised under the urgent procedure process, as is the case with other orders. The part about which he asked takes effect three months from when it is made. This will


be very shortly, assuming that the order is approved this evening.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and other hon. Members asked about the £2 million ceiling and wondered whether this was the same as the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom. Yes, it is. I was asked: is it large enough? I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but we feel that in the foreseeable future it is about right.
I was asked about the omission from Article 10. The part to which reference was made was omitted because of an equivalent provision in Section 17 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland), 1954, which makes it unnecessary to put it in this particular order.
The general point was raised whether this was not perhaps the most satisfactory long term way to cover legislation for any part of the United Kingdom. I agree. We are operating under temporary provisions and one accepts that we have to deal with legislation and the needs of Northern Ireland in ways less than satisfactory from the point of view of Members of Parliament. That is the position and we shall try to do our best.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment and Compulsory Insurance) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION ORDER)

10.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 671) a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.
This order, which will perhaps engage a little more of our time this evening, unlike the other two orders comes under the urgent procedure. That is to say, the order has already been made and now comes before the House for approval having been made.
The House will realise that this is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss Northern Ireland financial affairs in detail since the coming into force of the Temporary Provisions Act, and with your permission Mr. Speaker perhaps the House would wish me to set the order in a wider context.
The order is required to regularise the position which arose on the prorogation of the Stormont Parliament. When the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued it had already passed a Consolidated Fund Act providing for Consolidated Fund issues in respect of an Excess Vote for 1970–71, the Spring Supplementary Estimates for 1971–72 and the Vote on Account of 1972–73. In the normal way these grants would have been appropriated to individual services in an Appropriation Act later in the Session in accordance with the long-standing constitutional convention that supply must be appropriated in the Session in which it is granted. On this occasion, however, there was no time to comply with this convention to appropriate the grants before the Session was brought rapidly to an end by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972.
As the Northern Ireland Parliament had not appropriated and could not now appropriate the grants within the Session doubt was cast on whether moneys could be issued from the Consolidated Fund even though the issues were exactly in accordance with the Consolidated Fund Act. The problem was most acute in relation to the Vote on Account for 1972–73 without which Northern Ireland


Departments would have been unable to function after 1st April.
In this unprecedented situation the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General considered that the continued functioning of Government must be an overriding consideration. He asked for and was given an assurance that the necessary measures would be taken at an early date under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act to appropriate the moneys released by the Consolidated Fund Act (Northern Ireland), 1972. On the basis of this assurance he agreed that he would continue to authorise issues from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund within the limits laid down in that Act.
The order now before the House honours that assurance by making the usual Appropriation Act provisions in respect of the sum covered by the Consolidated Fund Act with retrospective effect where necessary.
It will be appreciated that the need for the order is technical and procedural in the circumstances that the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued, by an Act of this Parliament, before it had completed its normal financial business. But the order is also necessary and urgent as it is concerned with regularising financial transactions which have already taken place, and which are currently taking place. My right hon. Friend therefore decided that it should come into force immediately rather than follow the other procedure provided in the Temporary Provisions Act under which an order is laid in draft and not made until it has been approved. That is the procedure which we were following earlier this evening.
However, we did not think it right to bring this matter to the House without a general and fuller explanation of the financial arrangements. My right hon. Friends therefore presented to the House on 5th June a White Paper, entitled "Financial Arrangements and Legislation" which describes Northern Ireland finances, gives an outline of the Budget for 1972–73, and sets in their context the parliamentary measures which are required if public financial business in Northern Ireland is to proceed.
The order before the House tonight is the first of them and the most urgent

since it principally authorises the £140 million Vote on Account for 1972–73. My right hon. Friends did not wish to ask the House to approve the Appropriation Order until the overall revenue and expenditure figures had been made available. With permission, I should like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on some of the main items in the Northern Ireland Budget as it now stands.
The Northern Ireland economy has stood up surprisingly well to the difficulties of the recent past. In 1971 production rose substantially compared with a very small increase over the whole United Kingdom. Productivity increased by well over double the national increase. More houses were completed than in any previous year and, a hopeful sign for the future, negotiations were completed for industrial developments promising over 7,200 new jobs.
It is right that these achievements should be recorded in order to correct any impression that Northern Ireland is in a state of complete breakdown. They are a tribute to the vast majority of ordinary citizens, and particularly management and workers, who have gone about their business with steadfastness and energy always in the face of difficulties and often in the face of real danger.
These satisfactory signs do not, however, obscure the fact that the current situation gives cause for anxiety. It is important that projects now being discussed should be translated speedily into actual investment and new jobs. It is important, too, that valuable employment should not be lost because firms close as a result of present difficulties.
Only an end to unrest and a return to order can give any real hope for the future, and the Government's main purpose is to secure those ends. In the meanwhile help will be given wherever possible to preserve industry and employment and to encourage new investment to the maximum possible extent.
Already, in the 2½ months since my right hon. Friend has been responsible for the government of Northern Ireland a number of Measures have been announced and programmers launched, including massive assistance to the Belfast shipyard, a programme to help hard-hit


city centres, confirmation for the Londonderry Development Plan and the go-ahead for a major new bridge there, announcement of the Belfast urban motorway and a large new power station, the establishment of the Finance Corporation, and the financial reconstruction of the former ICL factory at Castlereagh. Overall we shall continue the well-balanced Northern Ireland Development Programme, which runs for 1970–75 and which provides the framework for all our activities.
But we are aware that serious problems remain. Urgent study is now being given to new measures to preserve jobs, create immediate new employment and help establish employment for the future particularly in areas to the west and south of the Province where opportunities have been low in the past. Amongst other things, we are considering the level of investment incentives following the changes in depreciation for tax purposes, announced in the Budget and in the light of the incentives announced for Great Britain and of the special situation in Northern Ireland. I can say no more about these matters today but as soon as I am in a position to do so I shall make further statements.
I make no apology for laying so much emphasis on enjoyment. Anyone at all familiar with Northern Ireland must be aware of the human and social problems arising from a level of unemployment which, over a long number of years, has been unacceptably high—not only in relation to the national average but also in comparison with the level in assisted areas of Great Britain. Anything we can do to improve the employment situation will contribute to the creation of a better background for peace.
I turn briefly to the tax changes which are proposed in the limited field of transferred taxation which are set out in the White Paper. The House will have an opportunity to consider them in detail at a later stage. They all represent parity with changes already announced in Great Britain.
In estate duty, the exemption limit will be raised from £12,500 to £15,000, and a revised scale introduced. Property as follows will be left out of account for estate duty: up to £15,000 if left to a surviving spouse; up to £50,000 if left to charities; and without limit, if left

to certain bodies concerned with the conservation of the national heritage, including the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum. The charges will apply for deaths occurring after 21st March, 1972; their estimated effect will be to reduce estate duty by £900,000 in a full year.
There is one change of significance under stamp duty, which will operate from 1st August. The limits for exemption and half-rate duty on the transfer of property other than stocks and shares will be increased, from £5,000 to £10,000 and from £7,000 to £15,000 respectively.
Turning to the expenditure side of the Budget, the Supply Estimates totalling £418 milion, £32 million more than actual expenditure last year, have been published and are available in the Vote Office. These Estimates were prepared by the former Northern Ireland Government. Tonight's order authorises the £140 million out of this total which had already been voted on account. An Appropriation (No. 2) Order will be laid shortly so that my right hon. Friend can seek approval for the remaining supply requirements arising from those Estimates. As explained in the White Paper, the total covered by these two orders will be less than the total of the Estimates by some £26·3 million. The provision is reduced by £68,500 for ministerial salaries and certain other expenses not required because of the operation of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, leaving approximately £26·2 million to be found from the capital purposes fund or from borrowing rather than from Votes. In this context, and as paragraph 3 of the White Paper explains, we are reviewing the adequacy of the arrangements for financing Northern Ireland in the future.
Public service pay increases, and accelerated compensation pay out and other new measures which my right hon. Friend has taken and will take will involve expenditure over and above that forecast in the Estimates. Later in the year, therefore, we shall require to publish Supplementary Estimates and lay a further Appropriation Order or Orders. It is not possible at this stage to forecast what these requirements will be.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I put a question to


my hon. Friend about the capital purposes fund to which he has just referred? I take it that these are represented, nominally, by some kind of Government securities, so that the use of this balance would involve the sale of those securities to the public and that, therefore, both the sources of finance are essentially borrowed. Would that be correct?

Mr. Howell: That is not my understanding of the position precisely. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to clarify it later this evening. As I understand it, as he probably knows, the capital purposes fund is, in effect, a reservoir, an accumulation of excess voted moneys that have not been used in previous years. I believe that it now contains about £13 million. To draw on that would be the aim behind the proposal that the £26·2 million should be found from the capital purposes fund or from borrowing. So it is not strictly the same as borrowing in the orthodox sense my right hon. Friend describes. The White Paper provides an outline of the Northern Ireland Budget. But it cannot be compared with budgets as we understand them in the United Kingdom context. Its function is largely procedural and designed to take Northern Ireland financial business one step further by foreshadowing future Orders in Council on the subject of expenditure and in the very limited field of transferred taxation. What it does not do, in the present context, is to deal with the detail or the cost of the measures which my right hon. Friend will undertake over the year.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear the Government's intention as to how the House will have the opportunity of debating Northern Ireland Estimates for 1972–73.

Mr. Howell: Financial Orders in Council, replacing, as it were, the procedure of the Finance Bill, will come forward to deal with the tax changes. As for the question of supply, that will be debated under the Appropriation Orders, as they come forward. Tonight gives the opportunity for the hon. Member to raise a number of matters under the Estimates if he wishes, or he can do so at other times when Appropriation Orders are put forward. That is the present position.
Our programmers are under urgent and continuous development and cannot be judged merely on what has been finalised in time for the White Paper. I hope that the House will understand that, given the time factor and the10 weeks since the introduction of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, it has been useful to range a little widely and set (the White Paper and the developing situation in context.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Normally, under the Supply procedure in the House just before the recess, there is wide discussion on a wide variety of issues. In that spirit there are one or two questions I shall put to the Minister in a moment.
Reverting to the question of procedure, and despite the way the Minister has clearly explained the procedures that are to be followed in this matter in the ensuing months, it seems more and more to many hon. Members on both sides of the House that, although the Act that was passed some weeks ago was a temporary measure, it is most unlikely that we shall be through with that temporary measure in the short period. I hope that before the "next time round" we are able to evolve a more workmanlike procedure for dealing with large sums of money. Tonight we are dealing with £150 million.
Some of my questions, I fully understand, are not capable of answer tonight. However, all of us have to build up a fund of knowledge about Northern Ireland. I certainly fit into the category of those who do. It may be that some of my questions are a little pernickety, but when we deal with our own appropriation orders in the House of Commons we are aware of the procedures that apply, according to the working of the various Government Departments. But that is not the case with many of us in the House regarding Northern Ireland because of the way the situation has developed over the years. By giving us information the Minister will be making us all more valuable Members because of the way in which we shall be able to deal with the detail of Northern Ireland Government. Although over the months and in recent years many hon. Members have become experts on various major


problems, we are now getting down to the nuts and bolts.
There is reference, on page 3, to £438,000, which is for the miscellaneous services for the year ended 31st March, 1971. Is the Minister able to give me some idea of what that relatively small sum adds up to in the total of £150 million? On page 4, under Class III, there is the figure for police services of £709,000. On page 9 there is the further figure of nearly £6 million for police services. I have no doubt that the police are mentioned as well in other parts of the order.
Now that there is direct rule, bearing in mind all that has gone on in recent years and the developments in the R.U.C. and the various reports, could the Minister indicate what control of the R.U.C. in Northern Ireland is now exercised by the Secretary of State, and how? We are all used to the system in this country of the Metropolitan Police and the various constabularies, county and county borough, in different parts of the country. Most of us are aware of the rôle of chief constables and watch committees in the boroughs and the police committees in the counties. We have lived with them and watched them develop.
Given this sum for which the Secretary of State is responsible, given the changes in the R.U.C. and given the fact we have a Secretary of State now working from Stormont, could the Minister indicate the form of control, if that is the right word, that he has over the R.U.C. and whether the relationship is similar to that between the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis?
On page 5, and again in later parts of the Appropriation Order, we have salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education. First, is control, if that is the right word, by the Ministry of Education in Northern, Ireland over educational facilities there similar to that of the Department of Education and Science at Westminster?
Since the Education Act, 1872, we have been clear in this country that the Board of Education and then the Ministry of Education had no control over the form of education in the schools. It is a matter of which we are very proud and at which

people from other parts of the Western World are surprised. The Education Act, 1944, clearly states the functions of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Therefore, now that we have a Secretary of State who is responsible for the Ministry of Education in Northern Ireland, may I ask whether he is responsible for a Department which operates in the same way as the Department of Education and Science in this country, working through local authorities with no control over the syllabus, with the teachers free to teach what they like in the context of the schools with no control from above?
I think my second question on this topic will interest many hon. Members because I suspect that developments in Northern Ireland over recent years are different from the way we do things here. I refer to the way that grants are given to Catholic schools. Over the years there have increasingly been discussions about Catholic and Church of England schools in this respect, but decreasingly regarding non-conformist schools. In the days of Lloyd George in 1906 there would be great political arguments in this country about the methods of giving money to religious schools. It was a great political issue in the Education Act, 1944. How and by what method is money given to religious schools, if that is the right expression, in Northern Ireland, and has there been a growth in the percentage of grants given in this respect over recent years?
Thirdly, on education—I know that many of my hon. Friends are concerned about the problem of Magee College, which I do not wish to raise—may we be given information whether the university grants system in Northern Ireland is similar to that which we have in this country with no control over the education given in the universities from above?
I now turn to page 8, Class II, No. 6,
For the charge in respect of Secret Services £5,000.
I should have been surprised if, even under the Stormont Government, moneys should have been raised for that purpose. All national Governments have Secret Services. But why, in heaven's name, a Secret Service—in the context of international relations, I presume—for Northern Ireland, and for the very small


sum of £5,000? Bearing in mind that international relations and international finance—in fact, international anything—are under the control of the Government at Westminster, perhaps we could be given some idea of the reason for that nomenclature.
The Under-Secretary gave us a situation report on the economy of Northern Ireland. It was of great interest. Though I visit Northern Ireland frequently now, given all the problems there—particularly in Belfast—I have been surprised at the resilient way in which industry keeps going. It is a remarkable thing in view of the image we have of what is going on in the country.
I reiterate the hope expressed in the debate we had a week ago that, in addition to political co-operation with the Republic, desirable though that may be, there will be far more economic co-operation. I have learned with surprise, from my talks with people in the North and in the South, that, whatever their views on the political issue, everybody accepts that there must be economic co-operation. The Republic's institutions for economic development mirror closely what is done in the North. There could be much more cross-Border co-operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) raised this question in a Select Committee with Professor Cairncross.
The Under-Secretary told us that there will be an opportunity to discuss the tax changes in the transferred area at a later stage. It is appropriate that we should do so. I will content myself with asking one question, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary is present. The Chief Secretary knows that I have been intrigued by the relationships that existed between the Treasury and Stormont and the way in which money was raised from the money market. Given direct rule and the fact that the Secretary of State has responsibility and an office here, what form does co-operation now take with the Treasury? Is the matter handed over entirely to the Treasury, or is a separate division maintained in the Secretary of State's office that carries on as if it were Stormont?
Ulster's economic problem is a real one, and nowhere is that more obvious than

in the matter of unemployment. When we discussed this matter last week, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that he thought that the suggestion that the economic problem of Northern Ireland impinged on the political one was overdone. There may be a difference of opinion about the relativity, but I cannot help feeling that the economic problem in the North, although separate from the political one—incidentally, even a well-off person can feel strongly about the Border question—is a real one.
I have learned from my visits to Northern Ireland that the problem west of the Bann is the one we must consider and that it is similar to the problems in the West of Wales and in the West of Scotland. It is common to the whole of the United Kingdom and to the Republic. In a small way we are discussing the problem tonight. In the months and years ahead it is the major problem other than that of the political solution to which we must turn our minds. Tonight we have put our minds to this problem for the second time in a fortnight. It is important that we find the right solution.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in referring to the financial arrangements embodied in Cmnd. 4998, paid tribute to the infrastructural developments which have taken place in Northern Ireland and highlighted the considerable generosity which the Government have shown towards Northern Ireland both before and after direct rule.
There cannot be too much emphasis placed on the almost over-riding necessity for more employment and more investment in Northern Ireland. One of the most tragic comments in the White Paper is in paragraph 13 which states:
The level of incomes and family structure combined to produce a tax yield per head lower than the national average.
It is indeed unfortunate that for a variety of economic reasons Northern Ireland is still falling behind the national average of wages and, therefore, taxation. We obviously look to the day when that differential will no longer exist.
One special point comes to mind, specifically and directly from the White


Paper in paragraph 27 relating to the estate duty provisions. May I assume that the estate duty levels, exemptions and so forth in Northern Ireland are identical in all respects to those applying in the rest of the United Kingdom? I have a hazy recollection from my student days that in agriculture Northern Ireland operated a slightly different estate duty structure from that applying in the rest of the country. In view of the minor changes in the White Paper does the agricultural benefit remain as hitherto?
I find one financial point disturbing. The Northern Ireland budget for this year would appear to be subscribing, perhaps more than in the past, to the concept of deficit financing and inevitably when there is a fairly wide use of loan facilities, it is tempting to ask how and when the loans are to be repaid. Will the Under-Secretary give some guidance on this point?
One fact which is so often overlooked in the Northern Ireland economy is the way in which over the last three years, in spite of the problems, hazards and anxieties which have beset our community, our gross national product has risen quite dramatically, particularly when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred in his opening remarks to the economic report produced by the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland and on page 10 can be found the most significant figures in the whole of that explanatory document. It says that the gross national product of Northern Ireland in 1971, which by any standards was a year of substantial terrorist activity, went up 6·7 per cent. compared with the United Kingdom figure of 0·9 per cent. This is a tribute to the grit and determination of everyone engaged in industry, in manufacturing, in farming and so forth in Northern Ireland.
I hope that as it develops over the next few hours the debate will not get bogged down in trying to make sneering references to the indebtedness of Northern Ireland to the British Treasury. I doubt if, apart from the South-East of England and the Midlands, there are many regions of Great Britain which are financially buoyant in that they contribute

more to the national Exchequer than they take from it. It is because Northern Ireland figures are presented separately that it is easy to seize on them and draw conclusions that we are the poor relation. I would suggest that we are no poorer than many other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stanley Orme: No one will make sneering references, and the hon. Member is the first to mention this. Would he agree that the substantial amount paid by the Exchequer to Northern Ireland only confirms that the suggestion of UDI is utter nonsense in the circumstances.

Mr. Pounder: It is not often I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I wholeheartedly agree with him on this occasion. That is the very point I was leading on to.
I have been interested in my years in the House in trying to unravel the financial arrangements that existed between Stormont and this House. I regret to say that even the White Paper offers little guidance on the exact make-up of the figures. It is all very well to talk in paragraph 11 about the amount of income tax, surtax and capital gains tax collected from Northern Ireland residents, and the corporation tax.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made the point about an independent British Ulster, UDI or whatever. Although I disagree with the concept of UDI in Northern Ireland for many reasons, I think the economic argument is one that people ignore at their peril. The case is overwhelming against any talk of a viable independent Northern Ireland in economic terms. The danger is that although we believe that to be the case the figures we should very much like to have access to appear often not to be available. I should like to see them set out exactly. Revenue in Northern Ireland is raised under all manner of headings, and when they are set out we can see the validity or otherwise of comments about UDI.
An over-riding sense of gloom was bound to emanate from any Northern Ireland Member taking part in the debate earlier tonight. It is agreeable, to say the least, that within a couple of hours we can turn our attention to a


financial field where the picture is much brighter.
Class III, No. 2 in Part III the order deals with the police services. I hope my hon. Friend can give a statement of reassurance to the members of that dedicated and excellent force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is far too much uncertainty in its ranks about its future. There is loose talk about reorganisation and restructuring, and rumours about a change in the colour of uniform. Most people would pay little attention to them, but the RUC has been kicked and hacked around by the Hunt Report and thereafter by Sir Arthur Young. Since we are looking to the day when the RUC can resume its rightful rôleand the Army can return to barracks, as an army should in peacetime in any part of the United Kingdom, the morale of the RUC must be raised to a much higher level. To remove uncertainties about its future, and about the idea that it will be taken out of a uniform the colour and tailoring of which it values, would he do something to reassure the RUC?
I refer next to Class II, No. 5—Part III. I am thinking particularly of the publications part of the Northern Ireland Government Information Service that was. My hon. Friend will realise, because of questions he has received from some of my hon. Friends and me, that I am referring to the publication "The Terror and the Tears". Perhaps he could clear up tonight some of the confusion about it. Some 80,000 copies of the document are lying about somewhere in a store, gathering dust. Why has distribution been withheld since 24th March, the more so since one understands that it is available, although one does not know where? This was a factual statement of the agony and the turmoil through which Northern Ireland was passing, and it was graphic in text and illustration. It was a Government, not a party, publication. Since my right hon. Friend has taken over the Government of Northern Ireland, it is fair to ask what has happened to this publication, why it has been withheld and whether efforts will be made to unscramble the confusion which has taken place over it.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I wish to widen the debate somewhat and look at some of the other

categories included in this very wide appropriation. In particular, I wish to talk about the position of those who claim to be political prisoners and of the internees before I turn to discussing industrial development and the economy.
A number of men are on hunger and clothing strike in the Crumlin Road jail, as are some women prisoners in Armagh jail, together with a number of prisoners—detainees or internees, they are still prisoners—in Long Kesh. The latter are on strike in sympathy with those who began the hunger strike.
In the strange, legalistic way in which we try to work, we would claim that there is no distinction between the men in Crumlin Road and the women in Armagh jail, who have been tried and convicted on offences they claim to have been committed for political purposes, and persons convicted on similar offences, perhaps committed for private gain. But peculiar circumstances surround these people which make it important that their case should be heard and that the Secretary of State should give urgent consideration to a review.
The first point to be made is that the people who claim that they committed these offences for political motives do not come from just one side of the sectarian divide or of the political divide in Northern Ireland. They represent both Unionists and non-Unionists. Secondly, when many of these people were put on trial, they refused to recognise, for political reasons, the jurisdiction of the court and therefore they were convicted and sentenced without their case, if they had a case, being heard and without there being any appeal. This point is further emphasised by the fact that some of the prisoners when they had completed their sentences were detained in internment camps because, in some strange way while in the custody of Her Majesty's prison governors, they had engaged in some sort of subversive activity.
I accept that people in this country can see no distinction, but these people regard themselves as a special case and of a particular significance. What is perhaps more important, and a point we should not fail to consider, is that their own communities regard them as such. Some of them are held in great affection by their own communities, and some are


regarded as having been tried and convicted on trumped-up charges before the Westminster initiative was taken. Therefore it is important that their rôle and place in the present situation should be carefully and thoroughly examined. When I raised this question last week the Secretary of State said he would not give way to blackmail. I can appreciate the point. He feels he cannot allow his hand to be forced in this way.
I want to put another proposition, which many people will not readily accept, and one which I do not hold, but which is nevertheless regarded as being of importance. I say that it is one which I do not hold and that is because I am against internment per se. It is that the Secretary of State is using internment for blackmail—"If you desist in your violence we will let more men out." Many of these men have been incarcerated for so long that they could not have been responsible for any of the violence at the moment. To hold one man in custody on the ground that he is hostage for the good conduct of another person not in prison is quite reprehensible and against our idea of the rule of law in this country.
It is something about which we should be concerned. However, there is the argument of the two blackmails and it is something which we should consider because, whether or not we like it, it is part of the equation, part of the flux and if we want to try to find some sort of temporary peace we have to have regard to the arguments that the other side are putting forward even if the Government and the Establishment do not accept them.
I turn to the question of the internees and I want to ask a number of questions of the hon. Gentleman, to some of which he may not be able to reply immediately. How many of these people now interned have been interned since 9th August? What is the average length of detention? Can we have percentages, absolute numbers? Secondly: following internment, rehabilitation? What is being done by the Department of Health and Social Welfare, the prison welfare service and the other welfare services for the rehabilitation of these men? What is being done to ensure that these men can go smoothly back into the jobs they held before? We

must always remember that these men have not been accused or convicted of anything. Nevertheless, they have lost their jobs, their families have lost income. Their children, while they have suffered the emotional deprivation of the loss of the head of the family, have also suffered considerable financial hardship as a result of the wage-earner being absent.
What are the social welfare departments doing about these families? In particular, if one is to believe the accounts in the newspapers, what is being done by the welfare services to follow up what happens to these men after they have come from their strange environment? What is being done in all sorts of ways to help them? In making these points I am keeping faith, together with my other colleagues who were in Northern Ireland, with the people who made these points to us, particularly the relatives of those on hunger strike. I must say how terribly impressed we were by the attitude which they took over the sufferings of those who were in jail, by their steadfastness and loyalty to these people and their awareness of the relevance of it all to the political situation. It was quite a moving experience to be with them and certainly an emotional one, irrespective of whether one agrees with the conduct of their relatives.
I come to another point about the prison and police services and the relationship between the Army and the police in the exercise of police duties, and that is the relationship between the arrest stage and the interrogation stage and the position of juveniles and young people. As I understand the law, questions are not to be put to persons under 14 without their parents or guardians being present. If that is the case, is the Minister satisfied that on every occasion a person who may be thought to be a juvenile is asked his age and where his parents are? Presumably, if they are not in Long Kesh they can be got round quickly enough to answer questions. The attitude to young people is important, when young people are being questioned, and it is important to take a hard, cold look at the activities of the security forces and of the police in particular. It is important that the police and other bodies follow the rule of law, where it exists, to ensure that young people's rights are defended.
I turn now to the question of the collection of debts. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and his party have shown the proper way of dealing with this problem, and have a right to say that when internment ceases they can talk about it. They have agreed that there are problems which have to be discussed at Civil Service level and they are extremely important. How will sums be deducted from social security payments in order to pay rents? How will the system work for someone who has incurred very great debts? How will they be deducted, if deducted at all? What discussions will take place on the question of unfair administration of the whole of this vicious system? These are matters on which the Government should be prepared to show their hand.
As to industrial development, it seems to me that a tremendous amount of British treasure has been devoted to Harland and Wolff, and more than anything else has shown the Unionists to be underwriting their position and the preserving of their jobs. It is important for the economic well being of the Province, and it gives them what they want. I know this grant will make the firm viable, but there is also the social and political as well as the economic context in which the grant is being given, namely, the redressing of the balance between the communities in employment. I accept that the balance cannot be redressed overnight. I accept that positive discrimination in favour of the minority might cause a lot of trouble, but in terms of the dilutees for training and of the people taken into apprenticeships we need to have a clear declaration that it is the Government's intention to redress the balance in this industry, and that the money being released, and the spin off to other and small firms, will create job opportunities for all.
What attention, for instance, are the Government giving in Northern Ireland to "operation eyesore" to enable a good deal of urban redevelopment to take place, and which can take up a fair amount of unemployment while longer term plans and strategies for employment are being prepared? In particular, what does he see as the rôle of the small company in developing and diversifying the economy of Northern Ireland?
The Minister will be aware of the proposed development plan for Newry which Mr. Paddy O'Hanlon of the SDLP has been pushing. What are the Department's reactions, and to what extent is the feasibility of the plan being examined?
I turn to Derry and the vexed question of Magee College. If Magee College had been allowed to develop as the University of Derry instead of being run down until it hardly exists, perhaps many of Derry's problems would never have arisen. But now Magee is on its last legs, it is tottering and at best it might be a small outpost of the new University of Ulster. Has the Minister any positive plan to reverse that decline and to look again at Magee? It is too late to upset the development that has taken place in Coleraine and elsewhere, but is there not still a job for Magee which would bring back employment and status to that cultured city of Derry and show a bit of positive discrimination to an area which badly needs it. There could be a polytechnic perhaps, Magee College and redevelopment of the Derry area. Other trade development, with the disappearance of tariffs between the Republic and the six counties, could make a positive increase in the economic life and viability of Derry City and bring badly needed employment to the town.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I should like first to ask my hon. Friend to give me an idea of the historic background to these appropriations, which we are being asked to sanction. How long ago were they originally drawn up by the Government of Stormont, for clearly how relevant they are to the expenses of the Province depends upon when they were drawn up.
I find this method of raising finance for the Province unsatisfactory and the way in which it is brought before the House extraordinarily arbitrary. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State likes to impress upon us all that responsibility for what goes on in Northern Ireland is his, but in a democracy that cannot be so. He is part of a Government and we are supporters of that Government. Therefore, I shall in my speech seek information about how the money is to be spent, bearing in mind that there is clearly an historic context


to these expenses about which I know very little. I am aware that my hon. Friend said that other Appropriation Orders would be brought forward as money was required. But that again seems to be a very arbitrary approach to trying to work out the Province's budget, particularly when we think how we in Westminster handle the budgets for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I turn to the appropriations, in particular the appropriations for 1972–73. They have about them an air of unreality because the inclusion in Part III, Class I, of expenses for the disbanded Parliament of Northern Ireland underlines the atmosphere of suspended animation that colours the politics of Ulster.
We in Westminster tonight are seeking to interpret the expenses of a Province with a population of 1½ million without most of us having constituencies in that Province and therefore without being in the daily touch with what goes on there that we claim for our own constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Orme: What about Wales and Scotland?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that few hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, care to get themselves into Scottish or Welsh debates because hon. Members representing constituencies in those areas of the United Kingdom deeply resent all attempts to get in on the debates. I speak here only for myself and for no one else. However, 1½ million people living in the United Kingdom are not democratically represented in this Parliament at Westminster and I gather that they are under-represented to the extent of four or five Members of Parliament. We do not know on which side of the House those four or five Members would sit if they were returned for Northern Ireland, and, without our knowing that, our deliberations are that much more unbalanced than would otherwise be the case. What they might or might not say would clearly affect the whole tenor of this debate.
If the missing Members cannot be with us because they do not exist at this point in time, we have, because of their absence, a greater responsibility to probe

the legislation which is brought before us on behalf of the 1½ million people of Northern Ireland, and, in particular, since we are dealing with money raised from the British taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]—to ask how that money is being spent. [Interruption.]
Clearly, my remarks are raising some sort of objection on the Opposition benches. I do not understand it, since it seems to me clear, in the light of the way that constituencies are represented in the rest of the United Kingdom, that Northern Ireland is under-represented by four or five Members of Parliament. If hon. Members opposite do not believe in democracy, let them say so. [Hon. Members: "Rubbish."] If they believe in democracy, why should they object to my making a statement of fact which is as clear as the light in this Chamber?

Mr. Orme: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: No, I refuse to give way. The hon. Member has been making noises and trying to interrupt my speech. If he does that from a sedentary position, I do not see why I should now give way to him in the course of a speech in which I am raising important matters relevant to the subject under debate. [An Hon. Member: "Time wasting."] Having made that point about the under-representation of Northern Ireland in the House—

Mr. Orme: Not true.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: —I come to the appropriations themselves.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am sorry, no. I am not prepared to give way to any—

Miss Devlin: The hon. Member is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Member is not giving way, so the hon. Lady must resume her seat.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I take, first, the item in Class III of £5,877,000 for police services. That is all we are told—"For police services". To be told as little as that leaves one with a thousand-and-one


questions unanswered. Is that money to be spent on the expansion of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? We know that it is under strength to the extent of 296 men. I should be glad to know that the money will be spent to do just that.
Or—this seems more important—is it not time we considered whether the establishment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of 4,396 men bears much relevance to the security problems which it may be asked to handle if we do not have 17—or 18 now, is it?—battalions of British soldiers in Northern Ireland, plus 8,000 men in the Ulster Defence Regiment?
If we hope, as I have hoped ever since I became concerned in the troubles in Northern Ireland, that the Army will one day be able to leave the streets, by the same token, the Royal Ulster Constabulary or some other force must be expanded to take up the slack and to be able to handle the sort of circumstances which are likely to prevail in the Province for many years to come, even assuming that peace were to come within the next few months.
What about equipment for the Royal Ulster Constabulary? We have seen it as an armed force, as a disarmed force, and then as an armed force once again. I wonder whether we are looking sufficiently to the future, and whether the present armament of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be adequate for the sort of task which it will probably be asked to handle. For instance I do not think they possess rubber bullets or weapons with which to fire them, and I doubt whether they have CS gas. Have they adequate Shorland armoured cars which they have used on occasion and which they have found useful in mob control?
Though the size and task of the RUC should be exercising our minds, it does not seem to get much time for discussion in this House. Yet we are being asked to approve expenditure of nearly £6 million for police services without any attempt to say what the expenditure is for.
Next I turn to item 8, Class III, which involves a sum of £2,062,000 for the Ministry of Home Affairs and refers to "certain miscellaneous services". I would ask my hon. Friend whether this covers compensation for damage.

I was interested to hear him say that my right hon. Friend is likely to bring forward a further appropriation to cover this item, but as I understand the situation at this moment of time, after three years of the troubles, there are 26,000 claims in the pipeline valued at £30 to £40 million. I understand that even up to the time of direct rule the Ministry of Home Affairs has been providing discretionary payments for up to 70 per cent. of the damage estimates. If this is so, may I ask from where the finance for these payments came, and where the money is coming from now? If my hon. Friend refers to another appropriation to be brought in by my right hon. Friend later this year, what is it meant to cover that is not already being covered?
What steps are being taken to speed up the payment of compensation? Is the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland prepared to defray the interest on bridging loans which have to be made to people whose premises are destroyed? Does my hon. Friend consider that there is a sufficient number of staff handling compensation claims to provide speedy payment to those whose premises have been damaged?
I believe that compensation is crucially important, for if we cannot guarantee law and order in Ulster we can at least make good material loss. This is within the bounds of us all in this House and I hope we shall do something about it.
Furthermore, may I ask who is financing the Ministry of Commerce's special scheme to underwrite business enterprises arriving in the Province? If we care about more employment in Northern Ireland and want to attract more investment, we must give those who seek to bring in industry a measure of assurance that if their factory is damaged they will be covered for its loss.
I wish to ask about the long delayed financial reconstruction of Short Brothers and Harland. I am not now sure whether the financial arrangements are a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I used to work at Short Brothers and it is the second largest employer of labour in Northern Ireland and is important to the economy of that country. Short Brothers is involved in


the Tri-Star project, and if that aircraft is successful it will bring more jobs to Short Brothers in Belfast. Who is responsible for the future of Short Brothers, and if the financial reconstruction is to happen, which Government Minister will be responsible?
I turn to a more politically contentious point, and this involves the question of who is to pay for the plebiscite on the border. It is beyond doubt that what the provisional IRA is seeking to create is a situation in Northern Ireland of such damage and bloodshed that all of us, whether we are Ulstermen or whether we live in other parts of the United Kingdom, will say, "Let us have done with the situation. What do you want?" They hope that out of that weariness and out of the trail of havoc and bloodletting which they have perpetrated they can blast their way to a conference table and ultimately blast the Border out of existence.
Therefore I find it strange that the plebiscite which was announced in March is taking such a long time to come, because it seems to me that when the people of Northern Ireland—not the Government, not Stormont, not the people here in Westminster, but the people being shot at and whose houses are being destroyed—can say what they want, whether they want to be linked with Dublin or with London, we shall know the reality of Northern Ireland and what its people want.
When I heard about the plebiscite last March, I thought that at last the people of Northern Ireland would have their say, but, alas, I have not heard from my hon. Friend, from my right hon. Friend or from the Prime Minister any further mention of when that plebiscite is to come. I want it to come, because I want the terrorists to realise that their campaign is in vain, and that if they continue with their violence they will be old men before the people of Northern Ireland will be ready to say that they want to be one community. Indeed, the longer the terrorism goes on the more poisoned will be the attitude they will create among the million Protestants who one day, I believe, will be part of a united Ireland. If the terrorists create these poisoned people, people whose hatred is every bit as deep as theirs, there will be no hope for

a united Ireland, no hope for one community, no hope for the whole island of Ireland to have a future which anybody would wish to share.
When is this plebiscite coming? And if it is coming, who will pay for it? Can my hon. Friend assure me that in these appropriations which we are approving tonight there is a sum of money set aside to make that plebiscite a reality?

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East(Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) in the broad compass of his remarks, but it seems a little strange to raise at this time of the night the issue of the Border in terms of a plebiscite.
As many hon. Members know, I am an ardent supporter of Britain's entry into the EEC. One reason for my view is that if both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were in the EEC the economic significance of the Border would go. I therefore urge the Governments of the two countries to consider holding joint studies urgently to look at the way in which the regional problems of the whole of Ireland will have to be tackled when we become members of the EEC. That strikes me as the most fruitful method of approaching this problem.
I know that statements have been made about a plebiscite, or referendum, call it what one will, but that would have only one result at the moment. The broad mass of the people of Northern Ireland would elect to remain part of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt about that, and the fact that we are discussing these appropriations reinforces the statement made earlier today by the Secretary of State that the Government and people of this country would not betray the people of Northern Ireland in terms of breaking their link with the United Kingdom unless and until the majority of the people there voted to relinquish it.
I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about one of my right hon. Friends broadcasting on Irish Television. I deeply deplore the remark that we ought to be engineering or cajoling the people of Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. That is not a posture that I adopt, and it is not the posture of my


party, as has been made clear from the Front Bench this evening.
My interest in Northern Ireland is not ephemeral. I have known the country for over 20 years. The remarkable thing is that both communities there, when one meets them separately, are among the friendliest and hardest working of any people in the world.
After having studied the shipbuilding industry, I disagree very much with some of the remarks of my colleagues. I do not think—coming from Clydeside, I say this with feeling—that what is happening in Harland and Wolff is underpinning the Unionist régime. I may be naive, but it seems a contribution to the nation's shipbuilding to have a yard capable of building the largest ships likely to be demanded. I should like it to take place elsewhere. Having met Mr. Hoppe and studied his plans, I hope that they achieve viability, so far as any yard anywhere in the world, including Japan, can do so.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said about trying to get a balanced labour force. I was heartened by the experiment in training, particularly of apprentices. Any balancing of employment starts with the intake of apprentices. From the employers in the yard we got the favourable view that they looked on the whole of Ireland as their catchment area, and, so far as humanly possible, with the apprentices they would consider ability to do a job and not the age-old barriers of religion and education. I am hopeful, but I understand that this will take a deal of time.
On the Class 4 Vote, for hospital services, I pay a tribute to the people in the hospital services in Northern Ireland and what they have done during the present unrest. In the short time at our disposal, I and my colleagues visited only one hospital, but we were impressed by the work of the nurses, and other members of the medical staff in treating patients generally and especially some of the victims of atrocities. One memory that I carried away from my recent visit was of a young woman, herself a medical social worker, lying in a hospital ward in the Royal Victoria, having lost a leg and suffered considerable damage to one eye as a result of the Abercorn Restaurant explosion. In this state, and bearing in mind what may be happening in Belfast

and other parts of Northern Ireland, when she was asked a question about bitterness she said, "No, no bitterness; only pity." She had no bitterness towards those who had perpetrated this crime on her and on others.
When looking at these appropriations, I hope that we ensure that the Northern Ireland hospital services are maintained and enhanced for the future.
I turn to Class IX on community relations. Mr. David Bleakley, who was a member of the former Northern Ireland Cabinet, did a remarkable job in trying to bring the communities together. One of the amazing things about the situation is that when we take the Northern Ireland politicians out of the Northern Ireland picture, we have politicians of considerable stature. Unfortunately, in the Northern Ireland scene, they do not play a political rôle. We heard about this earlier this evening. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who, unfortunately, is no longer present in the Chamber, and the hon. Member for Antrim, North took a very important part in the debate. But they attacked other politicians, or, rather, another politician in Northern Ireland. That is all very well and it is part of the game. But if we are to reach a political solution they must recognise that they have to sit down with other politicians in Northern Ireland. We can discuss appropriations and votes in the House of Commons, but ultimately the problems of Northern Ireland will have to be solved by the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.
In the United Kingdom's political atmosphere, when people are on a political hook, when opponents are on a political hook, somehow or other the smoke signals go up, and we realise the futility of driving our political points of view, which may be prejudiced, to the Nth degree. We realise that if we do that we shall be on a hook and someone else may not want to let us off it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the members of my party have made it perfectly clear that at any time they are prepared to sit down with the elected representatives of all other parties, including that of the right hon. Gentleman whom I attacked tonight, to discuss the future of Northern Ireland, recognising that


every elected representative must be at the table and must put forward his views and that those views should be freely and adequately discussed?

Mr. Douglas: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he ought to be cautioned. He ought to realise that his remarks this evening would not make it easier for the right hon. Gentleman whom he mentioned to sit down with him. That is all that I am saying. If the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that, there is little that I can do. Unfortunately, the same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West.
One often wants to get into a political context, but all the time one is driving the other man on to his particular hook. The politicians should get off their hooks. But they do not want to give anything because, in the Northern Ireland context, they think that in doing so they will be conceding ground. This will not do. If the problems are to be solved, they will have to be solved by Northern Ireland politicians, in the manner stated by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I welcome his statement that he is willing to sit down with elected politicians of all parties in Northern Ireland. I suggest that the Secretary of State immediately takes up that offer and puts the challenge.
When people speak about a political solution to the problems of the Bogside and the Creggan, of Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole, and say that the "no-go" areas can be removed only by a political solution and cannot be removed by force, I accept that. The politicians in Northern Ireland must show their mettle.
One of the best politicians that I have met anywhere—I say this with respect to hon. Members of this House—is Mr. John Hume. He is a big man in any context. He is living under extreme difficulties in his area of Londonderry. If John Hume put to the test what the hon. Member for North Antrim said, he would not fail. We all know that John Hume and his family are living in terror and under threat.

Mr. Maurice Foley: Would my hon. Friend agree that although John Hume is living under extreme difficulties in Derry nevertheless he

could not engage in political talks unless something was done about the internment policy?

Mr. Douglas: I agree. However, I would indicate the position of the Secretary of State. It has been said that the Secretary of State is using internment in terms of blackmail. Be that as it may, he is using internment as a political weapon, but he has little more to go. There are few people at the end of the day to let out.

Mr. Foley: There are 400.

Mr. Douglas: I hope that he will not be long in getting down to eliminating internment completely. However, he will have to have regard to the strategic position and to law and order. I am not doing the Secretary of State's job.

Mr. Foley: I think you are.

Mr. Douglas: No, I am not. I appreciate his position. The position is appreciated by right hon. and hon. Members who realise he has little more to go. He has walked the tight rope. He has sailed close to the Protestant wind. Unless he gets some "concession" in terms of abandonment or a toning down of the civil disobedience, or elimination of the concession relating to the "no-go" areas, he will be in great political difficulty. We have to recognise that.

Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) said that 400 are still interned. The fact is that at 9th June 288 are still interned.

Mr. Douglas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining my point. If we are getting down to 200 odd, we are quickly getting down to having little more with which to bargain. Unless, in terms of community relations and in terms of the good of the community as a whole, the Secretary of State gets some concession—I put that as widely as I can—he will be in difficulty.
I welcome the statement made the other week by the SDLP. It was making public that it was already using the Civil Service, rightly in my view.
I urge the hon. Member for Belfast, West and Mr. John Hume to think of going a little further. It is the dangers and the difficulties. It is a difficult situation, but if one argues the case one


has to give a political solution to the problem and show one's political metal. I fully appreciate the dangers involved in that situation, particularly for people like John Hume, who, I have indicated as clearly as I can, is a big man in any political circumstances.
My next point concerns Mr. Faulkner. I am not here to go in to bat for Mr. Faulkner, but some of the things we are talking about in terms of the industrial fabric of Northern Ireland are the direct result of the work he did, particularly as Minister of Commerce. Indeed, the Industry Bill is largely modelled on the Measures that the Northern Ireland Government introduced in the 1950s.
The remarkable work done by the Northern Ireland Government in devolutionary terms of regional policy is indicated by the economic report before us. The Northern Ireland economy, with all its deficiencies in terms of the high level of unemployment there, has stood up to this situation because of the forward-looking regional policy which has been adopted over the years, albeit on the basis of United Kingdom money.
We must recognise that part of the division in Northern Ireland has always been related to who gets the fruits. One thing which I deplore about the Unionist Party is that it has used and abused my class. Every time it has got into difficulties in terms of power, it has played the Orange card. We are seeing it conjured up again now. It has also used the fear weapon. All this talk of "them" and "us" must stop. The sooner the politicians in Northern Ireland cease using the terms "them" and "us" and trying to play the fear cards the better.
My last point relates to compensation. One of the saddest things which I saw on my visit to Belfast was the destruction of the Co-operative Society store. It was shocking. Why was it destroyed? Because it was a horrible capitalist organisation? No. As far as I can gather, the 180,000 membership of that society was comprised of all denominations. When the society paid a dividend—not as large as it used to be—it paid it indiscriminately to all sections of the population. That store, representing £5 million of trade, a third of the society's trade there, and, perhaps more important, 800 jobs have gone. That organisation

has already had some assistance from the Government. The society's representatives expressed their gratitude to me for the speedy way it has been done. But the society still has a tremendous problem. If rebuilding has to be carried out, a new building will be necessary. That will cost the society a considerable amount and may endanger the trade.
In the society's predicament I see the predicament of the whole of Northern Ireland. Men are engaged in destruction for the sake of it. We in the rest of the United Kingdom will be foolish if we think that by shutting our eyes to the position in Northern Ireland we can prevent that type of conflict coming here. I pray and trust that good sense will prevail in Northern Ireland in the coming weeks, because what I have seen there gives me little ground for hope. I see a Province, tottering on the verge of civil war, where honest men and women want to live in peace, but are prevented because they are prisoners of the fears of the past, of the present and of the future.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: We have a confusing array of documents to deal with—the Appropriation Order, the Estimates for 1972–73, the Financial Statement for 1972–73, and the White Paper "Financial Arrangements and Legislation", quite apart from the Economic Report for Northern Ireland which gives an encouraging picture for 1971. That document shows that the index of industrial production was up, more cars were on the road than in the previous year, hire purchase credit was up, and unemployment was not increasing to the extent it was in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Administration during that period deserved credit for the resilience of the economy against all sorts of difficulties.
As the Economic Report says, the paradox is that the bombings and general disruption during 1971 were not reflected in the report. To what extent does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary expect these incidents to be reflected in the coming year?
Neither the Vote Office nor the Library has any copies of any annual report of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, nor any report by the Commissioner for Complaints.
The sum of £709,500 granted in Schedule (B), Part II, Class III, to the police services, is a fairly modest sum in comparison with the task that the police perform. The complaints I hear from members of the police and from the Police Committee on my visits to Ulster are that the police equipment is poor in comparison with that of the security forces. The police deserve from us as good equipment as that of the Army, particularly in the matter of armoured vehicles, bullet-proof clothing, and weapons to defend their own stations. The police complain of the great delays they experience in getting this equipment. This matter should be rectified if morale is to remain high.
Do the provisions of the order provide scope for the police fulfilling a greater rôle when it is possible for the Army to disengage? Does my hon. Friend envisage enabling the police shortly to play a greater rôle and to be properly equipped to enter some of the areas which they do not enter at present unescorted by the Army?
To what extent do the police come under the direct control of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? To what extent does the Home Office have any authority over the police through the Police Committee? In the present situation it is desirable that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should have direct control.
On the item for miscellaneous services, the total granted in the Estimates for 1972–73 of £6 million for criminal injury and damage is staggering. This represents the physical toll, but there is also the psychological toll. I hope that both these factors are taken into account when immediate policy is being planned.

12.15 a.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: I was quite surprised to hear a number of hon. Members suggest earlier that because the debate related to economics it dealt with matters separate from the political realities of Northern Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth. The House could sit all night debating where to spend its £150 million or £250 million, but unless the political situation changes rapidly and radically in Northern

Ireland all that money will go where previous money has gone—down the drain and never even noticed by the people of Northern Ireland.
I should like to deal with three political considerations in Northern Ireland on which the whole relevance of the debate depends. The first is internment. Over the last week there was the release of first 50 internees, then 75 internees and detainees and a small number of internees immediately after that. Somehow, the Secretary of State seemed to be of the opinion that the anti-Unionist population, the Catholic population or the republican population, however it is termed, should have fallen about as if in adulation and gratitude for the fact that he had conceded the freedom of these men.
Let it be quite clear that we do not consider the liberty of men who have the right to be free to be a concession. For the Secretary of State to continue in his present manner, releasing internees, as he terms it, "in batches", as if they were carcases leaving after slaughter, will do nothing to endear him to the Catholic or Protestant populations. We are now in the situation we last faced in the days of Captain Terence O'Neill who thought that by wearing his carpet slippers and pussyfooting all over the Six Counties no one would notice that he was annoying both sides of the population at once. That is exactly what the Secretary of State is doing.
The release of the internees is not a concession or a negotiable factor. These men have the right to be free. They are innocent and have never been charged. To those who at this late day say, "Charge the remainder of the internees or release them", let it be clear that charging the internees will solve nothing. It will not end the rent and rate strike, or bring about co-operation by the mass of the people involved in the passive resistance campaign. On August 9th when the internment policy was introduced, not only myself anomy hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), but the Social Democratic Labour Party, the anti-Unionist councils in Northern Ireland and the mass of the Catholic population, made an unconditional pledge, not to the first internee, not to the latest batch of carcases to


be released, but to the last man to walk out of an internment camp, that there would be no co-operation with the forces of the State until the last man walked free from the Long Kesh and Magilligan camps.
Any man who wants to go back on his word of August 9th cannot be stopped. He can make up his own mind about that and that is his problem. But let not the Secretary of State be misled into thinking that one person going back on that pledge represents the feelings of those who made the pledge with him. The Secretary of State can make what deals he likes and sit at the table with whoever he likes. But until the last man is unconditionally released, whoever sits at that table will not represent the mass of the people.
The Secretary of State is equally confused about the longing and desire of the people in Northern Ireland for peace. It seems to the Government as if it is a new phenomenon that suddenly the constitutional savages of Northern Ireland woke up about two and a half months ago and said, "What about peace for an idea?". We have wanted peace for 50 long, miser able years in Northern Ireland. In fact, we have wanted peace in Ireland for 800 long, miserable years, and the main factor opposing real peace in our community was the British military intervention. We have wanted peace for probably the longest four years in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. It is no new phenomenon to us.
But let not the Secretary of State and the Government mistake peace for surrender. I learned to walk when I was about a year old. The people of Northern Ireland politically learnt to walk about four years ago. Neither I nor the people I represent are about to start crawling now. What we mean by peace is not only the ability to walk through the streets of Belfast with no fear of the bomb or the bullet but the ability to walk through the streets of Northern Ireland on our two feet like a man, with human dignity. A man wants the ability to walk through the streets of Northern Ireland without the fear that, because his father was interned before him, he might be, without the knowledge that he does not have any liberty because the only liberties that exist are those spelt out by the law, and that they can be taken away by the

same law at any time. The same people who talk of peace cannot fail to understand why nobody believes them.
How can the Secretary of State talk peace to the House and the mass media? Because of what is happening in the Crumlin Road prison, people make up their own minds about what he means by peace. Does peace mean that because nobody can see Billy McKee die of hunger, that because he does it slowly, quietly and painfully, believing in a principle and his right to be treated as a political prisoner, it is a peaceful way to die?
I have a straight question which I hope the Minister who winds up the debate will answer. It is not a question of blackmail or initiatives. It is: "Are you going to let Bill McKee die? You have about four days to make up your mind." If Billy McKee dies, peace initiatives will be for nothing, because the understanding of peace will be that it will be the pre-1968 peace. It will not be justice but the concept that peace exists when nobody complains.
All of this must be relevant to the whole question of Northern Ireland. The House can discuss endlessly what it will do with the finances of Northern Ireland, but it cannot do anything with them without the people of Northern Ireland, and at present it does not have the people—not the Catholic people, not the Protestant people.

Mr. Orme: Would not the hon. Lady agree that the demonstrations for peace by the Catholic women both in Anderson-town and Bogside are evidence not of a demand for peace at any price but of a desire for peace? Is she aware that the wives of the internees that were leaving to go to Long Kesh expressed this point of view to us? That shows that there is an earnest desire for peace.

Miss Devlin: That is exactly what I have been saying. There has always been an earnest desire for peace. But also be it known that the four points of the peace plan of the women of the Bogside, of the women of Belfast, of the wives of the internees are exactly the same four points as those of the Civil Rights Association, the Official Sinn Fein, the Provisional Sinn Fein and the Northern Resistance Movement.

Mr. Orme: Not true.

Miss Devlin: It is true, with respect to the hon. Gentleman. I live in Northern Ireland, and I know it is true. These women have stated that it is true.

Mr. Orme: It is not true.

Miss Devlin: Unless the Secretary of State and the Government are prepared to consider the political matters, the financial matters do not count. We have not got to the next Supply Estimates. The Minister of State must realise that he has until next Friday night to make up his mind what he will do about Northern Ireland. The problem will not be solved by trying to put one side against the other and then move in in a peacekeeping rôle.
Let it also be understood that if the House thinks it will ever see a solitary penny of the money that has been withheld in the rent and rates strike it has another think coming. It is not going to get it. On 9th August, the people of Northern Ireland went on rent and rate strike in passive protest against the policy of internment. Some of our people say, "Stop the violence", but while there is an earnest and genuine move for peace, the authorities try at the same time both to stop the violence and to take away the passive means of resistance. The people do want peace but they also want an end to internment, to the Special Powers Act, to the brutalities and to the tortures in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Can the hon. Lady tell me under which appropriation she is speaking?

Miss Devlin: Under the appropriations for prison services and community relations, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although presumably the prison service is not paying for McKee's food at the present moment, these matters come under Part III, Class III and Class IX
The passive resistance campaign of the rent and rate strike is not just a matter of money owing to the State. A lot of suffering has been borne by the women involved because their men folk have been taken away and interned. Because they went on rent and rate strike, their social security benefits were taken from them.
The Government have been asked about what was to be done for internees as they came out and what the welfare services would do. What happened while the internees were in camp? The community in which they had lived kept their families. They were looked after by ordinary people who themselves were on rent strike and were suffering from the deprivation of their social security benefits. They kept not only the families of internees but the families of men still on the run and who are in need of amnesty before there will be peace in Northern Ireland. If hon. Members want to count these things in financial terms, then we in Northern Ireland have paid for internment. The people have paid with their liberty and at the cost of paying to keep the families of these men.

Mr. Orme: The taxpayers of Britain have also paid.

Miss Devlin: The taxpayers of this country have also paid, but Stormont took it. The price has been paid in £s, in fear and in bloodshed, and it has been paid ten times over. The rent strike will end only when the last man walks free and when a rent amnesty is declared for all those forced into the strike because of Stormont's policy. No matter what anyone says, the Government are not now going to get that money. It would not be fair if they did so, and no one wants to pay it back.
Several hon. Members have raised the question of a breakdown of the money flowing into Northern Ireland. To begin with, £27,000 is paid to the representatives in the Northern Ireland Parliament. Some say that we are under-represented in Northern Ireland. Britain must be the only country in the world paying £27,000 to members of a representative assembly which does not exist any more. We could have six more representatives of Northern Ireland here for that money—representatives who are not able to speak in a representative assembly in Northern Ireland.
We are continually hearing about how we in Northern Ireland are living off the backs of the British taxpayers. But when Britain is putting money into investment and incentives and the rest, perhaps we should take a look at the outflow from Northern Ireland—the outflow of profits to such firms as Dupont,


ICI and British Enkalon. Let us also consider how the money flows from the people of Northern Ireland when we talk about resilience.
We have also heard a good deal tonight about the blight west of the Bann, and it is time that the House woke up to it. A plan was put through by Stormont and I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider it. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone the mining and exploration rights have been let by the Stormont Government to every two penny-halfpenny American or Canadian company which wanted to buy them. If we need money and development west of the Bann, if we need jobs west of the Bann, will the Minister consider giving us back our mining and exploration rights? We will work the mines and we will keep the profits for a change.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I am emboldened by the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to make a speech which would much more appropriately have been made earlier in the evening. If the views we have heard are representative of the attitude taken by the minority towards the initiative of the Secretary of State then I can only say that the outlook for Ireland is much worse than I thought it was and worse than I had feared. If one thing is clear it is that there has been a hardening of attitudes on both sides, particularly over the last six or nine weeks and particularly on the majority side. As we have heard all too clearly from the hon. Lady there has been a hardening on the minority side.
The sad fact is that there is now no longer any middle opinion left in the North of Ireland. The majority is reaching the point where it acquiesces in or even condones the answering of force by force. It may well be that in doing that it does itself the greatest disservice. In discussion of the situation in the North of Ireland with those on the majority side, with one's friends and family, the first thing that will be said is, "You betrayed us, you let us down. You took away Stormont, you took away a Government which, by any electoral means, would have returned a Unionist majority and you will go on thereafter to betray us on the Border." I believe that this

is nonsense. It has been said to be so by the Secretary of State and the Government. It has been denied strenuously tonight and in the past, but I hope that it is accepted from what has been said tonight that the truth is that it is not accepted by the majority in the community.
The hon. Lady had her list of priorities but she did not say anything about the Border. I have heard it said in this House that what is happening in the North of Ireland has nothing to do with the Border. That is quite untrue because a million Protestants believe it is about the Border and have always believed that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is not present now, although he was present earlier and intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) to explain what he had to say at Banbridge over the weekend, when he raised the whole question of the bona fides of the British Government and their intentions and the intentions of the Secretary of State as to preserving the Border. What he said, to paraphrase was that "Willy" was to go off and get shot of the problem as quickly as possible. That may not have been a direct incitement to violence but they are words which I am sure will lead to grave trouble in the North of Ireland and could well lead to greater violence.
I want to consider whether there is any reality behind the fears of the majority that the Border is in danger. If there is then we cannot ask the majority to exercise the kind of moderation I want it to exercise. I am not going into the many reasons why they should think the Border is not in danger. I would not ask them to accept the word of the British Government about that because many of them do not do so, but there are facts which make it clear that the Border is in no way in danger, and I will enumerate one or two of them.
First of all, as has been said by hon. Members opposite, and as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in Ireland over the weekend, it is perfectly clear that in the North of Ireland no democratic majority can conceivably be found to change the Border at the


moment, so long as the vote is confined to the Six Counties. Indeed, if it came to a vote, I have no doubt that there would be a sizeable vote among the minority for the Border as it is.
The second reason is clear from every newspaper report, clear from this debate, clear from all we know, that every bomb and every murder puts the question of a change in the Border further and further away. There can be no reunification of Ireland while the bombs go off, as they are going off at the moment.
I am choosing only three reasons, and my last is one which many people who would disagree with my views might accept as being a valid one, and it is that the South itself over 50 years has done nothing to make reconciliation possible. Every step it has taken, in its own constitution and in many, many ways, has drawn it away from the possibility of providing a happy united Ireland.
The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster was raising an important point, although I do not want to follow her remarks upon it and go into the whole question of the financial relationship between this country and Northern Ireland and such benefits as may or may not go to it—

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: But that is what we are discussing.

Mr. Miscampbell: —although it is a factor affecting people's pockets. Does the hon. Member want to interrupt?

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Member has informed the House that he does not want to go into the financial implications. What I was suggesting is that that is the business before the House.

Mr. Miscampbell: Fortunately, we do not always have to discuss only the terms of the business before the House. Had that been so, perhaps I should have been out of order a long time ago. All I would say is that I do not want to urge that reason, the financial reason, upon the House.
My last point why the Border is not in issue is simply this. Ireland is full of dreams, but nobody in Ireland ever takes the smallest step to make dreams come true—unless they think that bombs can

make dreams come true. Has anyone there, even in the North, ever given any thought to what Ireland would be like if it were united with a million disaffected Protestants in the north?
For these reasons I would urge that in practical terms one does not have to rely, though I would hope people would, upon the word of the British Government. The fact is that there is no possibility in the near future, or, indeed, in the foreseeable future, of the Border being a serious question. That is important, because, once that is established, it is possible to ask the Northern Protestants and the Northern majority to think again of what is happening at this moment in Northern Ireland.
If the Border were in jeopardy it would be very difficult to ask. In asking them to be moderate we are asking for patience in a situation that has become unbearable and where it is strongly suspected, for good reason, that if these conditions were prevalent on this side of the water they would not be tolerated for one moment. Nevertheless, there are good, practical reasons why the majority should eschew violence. I list the three most important reasons as these.
If the maintenance of a connection with this country is of importance to them, as it clearly is, the one certain way in which it can be broken is for the electorate on this side of the water to become disenchanted. If the electorate begin to say, "A plague on both your houses", and that view becomes widely held, then the link might be endangered.
Secondly, violence and the building of barricades give to those who are indulging in terrorism the opportunity to say to their own community, "We have to continue to use these methods; they are essential for your sake."
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the physical barricades, whether erected by the minority or the majority, are physical barricades across the streets but are also barricades against the hearts and minds of men and women who live together. Whether or not there is a border the two communities must live together as they have done for hundreds of years. If both sides turn towards violence now the outlook is very grave.
What is needed is support for the initiative. How can that be given? I can


speak only from one side of the fence, but the lessons can be learnt on the other side as well. The need is for public help, public acknowledgment of what is happening and public discussion. By public discussions, I do not mean simply making demands for the unattainable. We shall solve our problems only if the public discussions are commenced and are fruitful. I fully understand the difficulties. I fully appreciate that Ulster politicians may feel that a too close embrace with the Government will do themselves and Ireland no good and that all that will happen is that they will be outflanked by those who are more extreme than themselves.
I am not asking for anything more than public recognition of the work that the Secretary of State is doing, a willingness in public to recognise that work and for people to begin to work with him rather than always against him. If that is done great things will be achieved. To those in the north who find it difficult to take that step I say what is the use of preserving personal political decisions if the Province tears itself to bits? The position is perfectly clear. The initiative has to succeed. If it fails, then after Whitelaw there will be civil war.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Clearly, we have just listened to a speech from the hon. Member for Black-pool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) which was intended for the debate which ended at 10 o'clock. I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to deliver it, nevertheless. I was tempted to do the same, but I have redrafted what I have in mind to say, and I shall address myself to the White Paper on Financial Arrangements and Legislation, with particular reference to the moneys to be granted to the Harland and Wolff shipyard and to Classes III, IV, V and IX in the Appropriation Order, taking a final look at the matter from the standpoint of the English taxpayer.
I make my observations on the financial arrangements for the coming year from the standpoint of one who was in Northern Ireland last week, on a deputation with some of my hon. Friends. Our first visit, at the commencement of our journey through Northern Ireland, was to the Harland and Wolff shipyard. It was not my first visit. My first visits

to Harland and Wolff were to join an aircraft carrier at the Victoria Wharf during the war and to return with it to the yard subsequently.
I was much interested in the changes, and much impressed by the layout. I wish the yard well, though when I look at the plight of shipbuilding in the United Kingdom I cannot muster much confidence. I cannot subscribe, for example, to the confidence which Mr. Hoppe expressed to us that the yard will be viable in 1975. I note, for instance, that it will pay a dividend by 1975, though Mr. Hoppe is confident that it will otherwise be viable.
When I consider the present level of productivity of Harland and Wolff and compare it with productivity levels at other yards in Europe which might be regarded as competitive, again, I cannot muster much confidence. When I look at the cost structure of Harland and Wolff and compare it with what I know about Japanese yards and recall evidence given to Select Committees of the House by representatives of British shipbuilding that, in their judgment, no yard now in the Western world is likely to be able to compete in future with Japanese yards in the construction of tankers above 100,000 tons, again, I cannot, with the best will in the world, subscribe to the confidence of Mr. Hoppe. But I wish the yard well.
In view of the public moneys involved, not merely in the present but in the past, and especially given the recent vast injection, one must ask what equity the British taxpayer will have in exchange. That is my first question to the Minister. What public equity are we to see provided in Harland and Wolff?
My second question relates to the point already raised by my hon. Friends about a balanced work force at Harland and Wolff. Again, I do not doubt the intentions of Mr. Hoppe and senior management, but I am mindful of the difficulties. Given the present distribution of jobs between Protestants and Catholics, if I may use euphemisms, and the proportion of 16 to one, even if the 4,000 new jobs are provided on a 50–50 basis, that will still only reduce the ratio to eight to one.
Given the symbolic character of the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Northern Ireland society, does the Minister think


that much more dramatic policies of recruitment will have to be pursued if Harland and Wolff is not to continue to be seen by the minority as a symbol of job discrimination? I appreciate all the difficulties which may be insuperable in the short term, but we must have these matters constantly in mind if only to meet the complaints that will come.
I turn to Class III, the Votes on Account for the year ending March, 1973, and wish to draw attention to page 9 which refers to prison services. I emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the desire for peace, even among the wives and sisters of those who are still interned. Despite the deeply felt grievances which are still all too easily discernible among Catholics, despite their smouldering resentment, there have been important and vital responses to the Secretary of State's initiative.
My hon. Friends and I were impressed by what we saw in Northern Ireland, and on our visit we did not encounter a smarter or more attractive body of women than the 40 or 50 wives and sisters of the men who are still interned. We found among them the same desire for peace—provided that it is peace with justice and provided that their husbands and brothers are treated as political prisoners with a prospect of early release.
We did not just sit there and listen to their representations; we tried to explain the situation to them. Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) told them the realities of the situation in terms with which I am sure no hon. Member in this House would quarrel. It is only fair to record my impression that the men on whose behalf they were speaking—the present hunger strikers in the Crumlin Road gaol, men like Billy McKee about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was so concerned—are the men who could provide the leadership that is needed in response to the Secretary of State's initiative.
I do not underestimate the difficulties but, when the issue is so grave, it is inevitable that the stakes will be high. One approach could be an amnesty for all imprisoned as a result of the troubles

—Protestant and Catholic. That would have the effect not only of releasing stabilising influences into areas that are in critical need of them, but of restoring a sense of equity and fair play to the community.
I now turn to Class IV, which deals with employment. Last Thursday in the House I raised the question of the distribution of job opportunities in Northern Ireland. The Minister informed me that 7,200 jobs were created in Northern Ireland in 1971, and that of those 35 per cent. were in projects west of the Bann. I expressed concern about the obvious imbalance of job opportunities on either side of the Bann between Belfast and the Derry hinterland and reminded the Minister that this constituted a major source of discontent on the part of the minority. I asked him to provide a more balanced distribution of jobs in future and to pursue more vigorous and dramatic policies of redress, and he reminded me that 35 per cent. of the jobs being provided west of the Bann would meet the needs of a population that amounted to only 27 per cent. of the whole.
There was not the opportunity then to remind the Minister, as I now wish to tell his hon. Friend, that I was well aware of that, and that what I wished to draw his attention to was the much greater leeway that had to be made up west of the Bann and the higher levels of unemployment there which would require much energetic job creation or a different distribution of jobs. I am sure that I do not have to say any more about that, especially in view of what has been said about it by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster.
I now turn to Class V, and I want to refer especially to Magee College and the setting up of the new university at Coleraine. It must now be evident to all hon. Members that this was a lunatic decision. It is presumably irreversible, but I sometimes wonder at the indignation of some of those who must have had a part in this decision about the position in Derry and especially the "no-go" area. I do not see how they can be so concerned about the "no-go" area of Derry when, by their action in siting this new university at Coleraine when it ought to have gone to Derry, they gave the impression that they regarded Derry as expendable anyway.
I now propose to say something about the "no-go" area of Derry under Class IX which deals with community relations. Though I understand the sense of outrage on the part of people in Northern Ireland at the spectacle of the "no-go" area in the Bogside, I want to record my impression of it last week. It is not an enclave of lawlessness in the way in which I could have seen it when I was there last August. It is difficult now not to see it as a much smarter, tidied-up area and also a spontaneously organised area of safety for a community which has rejected what it had come to view as a system of one-sided law and order. They are in no doubt that there is ample evidence of police partiality and brutality in the records as well as in their own minds and personal experience. That impression is based on personal visits that I made to homes, a school and boys' club and shops. I also visited the Rosemount Army Post and spoke to the soldiers.
The newsagent's shop claimed much higher sales of newspapers and increased turnover during the last year. Presumably the Bogsiders like reading about themselves. But I wonder whether this is not a partial explanation. Perhaps the correct treatment is to remove the spotlight of public attention. Even the money involved in the rates and rent strike does not justify the indignation that it engenders in some circles. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that there is only a little over £1 million owing in any event, and that more than half that sum has been withheld in social security payments.
I also had the pleasure of discussing the position with Ulster Unionists and appealing to them to support the initiative of the Secretary of State, expressing my confidence that they had had no part in the demonstration in Derry on Saturday week, but asking them what they were doing to prevent it being repeated. I was told that they did not intend to take any steps to prevent such demonstrations, which they regarded as necessary. They were prepared to accept the possibility of violence and of that violence involving the demonstrators and the Army. When I asked whether this would not strain the tolerance of the British citizen and taxpayer, they said that they were ready to go independent and dispense with financial aid.
I do not want to do what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) was anxious that none of us should do, and sneer at the financial dependence of the North of Ireland on the English people. The only sneering of this kind that I have encountered in recent years has usually, I am sorry to say, come from some ungenerous Ulster people, about the differences between their own living standards and welfare benefits and those in the South—overlooking, as the Belfast Telegraph said, though not in the context, on 7th June last, the extent to which all these financial arrangements contribute.
I want to deal with the UDI mood which exists in some Unionist circles and circles further to the right in Northern Ireland. Last week the Belfast Telegraph asked those who still nurtured such UDI beliefs to look at the Appropriation Order and the White Paper, substituting, as it does, for a Northern Ireland budget. It stated:
It shows that in 1971–72, despite surprising growth in the economy, we were still £133 million short of meeting our bills out of tax revenue raised in Northern Ireland. In other words, Westminster hands over about £90 for every man, woman and child here, to maintain British standards of payments and subsidies, not counting the cost of national services like defence, to which we contribute a token £½ million.
When I went to Rosemount Army Post last week, I was enquiring for Yorkshire soldiers, preferably South Yorkshire and, if possible, Sheffield soldiers. I met soldiers from Huddersfield and Leeds, but they might have been lads from any other part of England. I was impressed by their coolness, even though, while I was there with them, we came under rifle fire. In my eyes they were only children, in their late teens. They are under tremendous strain. I hope that they will not come under even greater pressure in the days to come than that to which they have already been subject.
In the debate we have heard similar appeals. I echo them now. I ask those who might be considering coming into conflict with the Army to bear in mind the extent to which they are being helped, through their economy and social security, by the British taxpayer. Paraphrasing my question to Ulster Unionists in Londonderry last Friday, I asked these people whether they do not consider that they


are in grave danger of straining the limits of tolerance of the British taxpayer if they enter into or otherwise encourage activities in the days ahead that will bring them into conflict with British soldiers.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I shall be as brief as possible because the hour is very late.
In his final remarks, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), underlined the total unreality of the debate. I have returned from my constituency after seeing rioting, shooting and burning in the streets, all within the last two or three days. From both sides of the House appeals are made to citizens not to contemplate anything that will bring them into conflict with the soldiers. Speaking on behalf of the Unionists, the loyalist part of the population, I remind the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, that we have been the subject of the most violent and vicious attack over the last three years that has ever been seen anywhere in the world. This has not been limited to an attack on police officers or soldiers but has extended to citizens going about their ordinary work, shopping, and so on, and even to children. Young girls have been seized in the street and have had their heads shaven and tar poured over them. Others have been shot in the back of the leg—though very often they are Catholics—by republicans, members of the IRA. The Army is incapable of doing anything to help or to save them.
My right hon. Friend appeals to us not to demonstrate. How can he appeal thus when only a few weeks ago in the Bally-murphy area a gun battle went on for hours? Twenty-four hours after the shooting had stopped some soldiers came and searched two houses and one school. They found nothing. Yet many hon. Members have said throughout this debate that this is not a "no-go" area. Repeatedly young soldiers such as those described by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, are being shot at in the Taggart Memorial hall area. Often the fire is not returned. Certainly the gunmen are never pursued and houses are not searched immediately. Is this a law-abiding area where the rule of law

applies, or is it a "no-go" area in Belfast?
We are dealing with the estimates which among other topics cover excise duties. I have been across the Border twice within the past two weeks and I was not stopped once by an excise officer. There were several men in the car with me. We could have been carrying anything in that car. I was going across a part of the Border where I am not known. The car was not known. Going across with me were a lot of other cars. I noticed not one car in front or behind me that was stopped. No one that I noticed was even asked for a driving licence. Yet we hear this weekend about arms from Libya being sent into Northern Ireland.
What is the Under-Secretary doing to tighten up Border control? At the end of his speech the hon. Member for Attercliffe dealt with Londonderry. There is a strip of land several miles wide separating the Bogside and Creggan districts from the Border. Yet terrorists come across with impunity in and out of the "no-go" areas of Derry. Why is not this section of the Border properly controlled? What is the Minister going to do to establish proper control of the Border as a way of stopping the tremendous flow of illegal arms and more particularly explosives into Northern Ireland?
Speaking as a representative of the majority party in Northern Ireland, I can understand why members of the UDA demonstrate in Belfast. The Minister said that he is not going to sell out Northern Ireland, that he is determined the will of the majority shall be the final arbiter. Indeed, the Prime Minister sent a message to the last Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Brian Faulkner, promising him support at the time of the last Unionist Party Conference. A few months later he was sacked. The Minister took over the political initiative promising resolute action against the terrorists. He said he would be ruthless and determined. He has been following a softly, softly policy, the exact opposite of what he said.
Be that as it may, many hon. Members have referred to the fact that the British public may become tired of the Ulster commitment. Ulstermen are not fools. They are aware of this weariness in


Britain, of this wave of criticism. They foresee pressure in Britain which may lead to some type of move to disengage. Are these people wrong in preparing to defend themselves against such an eventuality? In any event, Front Bench speakers on both sides know as well as I do that no Parliament can bind its successors. A statement of intent can be made on the Floor of this House and can be reversed in the next Parliament a few years, months or weeks later. There is no assurance in politics.
here fore, a population which has been subject to the type of attacks to which the Ulster population has been subjected over the past three years, attacks which have intensified since the political initiative, has little ground for confidence. Therefore, at last, by way of protest both over the continuation of the "no-go" areas some 10 weeks after the political initiative was taken and, more especially, at the continuing and escalating violence, the 350 more dead, the 6,000 or 7,000 seriously injured in Northern Ireland, and in the knowledge that this cannot go on and that the Army is doing very little at the moment to bring it to a speedy conclusion, these men are preparing to create a state of law and order for themselves.
After all, what is the first responsibility of the Government? I read in the weekend speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he thought the main problem in Northern Ireland was fear. I tell him sincerely that the main problem in Northern Ireland is not fear. The problem is the existence of the Irish Republican Army, a body which is ruthless, vicious and savage and determined to go on shooting and murdering to achieve a political end. This is the only problem in Northern Ireland. This is the problem that the people of Northern Ireland call upon the Government to deal with resolutely, firmly and strongly. The Government have produced no evidence of their determination to tackle the problem at its root. That is the reason I find a general feeling of despair and disillusion in Northern Ireland.
I agree with much of what has been said in the debate on the Appropriation Order. I agree about the necessity to help our industries, such as the hon. Member for Attercliffe mentioned—the shipyards and the aircraft industry in my

constituency—but these are long term measures and we have not got a long time in Northern Ireland.
The public will not put up with one or two men being shot dead every day on the streets in a small Province like Ulster and the tens, even hundreds, injured each week. This is the toll, and it cannot go on.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have pressed for an end of internment. My right hon. Friend, in an effort to win the confidence of the minority, has released many men from internment. What has been the result? There has been no result. The violence continues and increases.
I should like my hon. Friend, either in reply or later in considering the debate, to consider seriously the points which I have put forward, particularly about the restoration of law and order. It is essential that these "no-go" areas be brought to an end. It it is essential that regular police patrols should get back into every part of Northern Ireland; not just an Army Ferret or armoured car driving quickly through an area, but a regular foot patrol of men who are able to identify those who live in the area, to identify the trouble makers and to know where to go when there is violence or some other breach of the law.
The Government's first job is to establish and maintain law and order. Their failure in this is precisely where they are betraying Northern Ireland at the moment.

1.19 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) dwelt at length on the question of a plebiscite. If I were a Unionist, which I am not, I should be disquieted at the prospect of a plebiscite. In an earlier debate the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that the constant repetition of a guarantee diminishes the value of the guarantee. Yet assurances have been constantly sought, and the Government have constantly given them. At the same time, the Unionists ask for or have been offered a plebiscite. Some people ask—"Why not have a plebiscite?". The Government seem to be saying to the Unionists, "We are prepared to keep asking you until you say, 'Yes' ".

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am not concerned about a plebiscite for Unionists. I am concerned about a plebiscite for all the people of Northern Ireland who are, after all, the people whom we are governing.

Mr. McManus: I was speaking specifically about the Unionist population, because the whole population breaks down fairly evenly into those who want union and those who do not want union. I have said what the Government seem to be saying. In addition, frequent statements are made from the Front Bench to the effect—"Let the majority population be assured that nothing will change". If I were a Unionist, on hearing that over and over again I should begin to wonder, especially as there appears to be a commitment in the other direction on this side.
All this money which is being voted must be seen against the background of violence. I want to inject some realism into the remarks which have been made about violence. There is undoubtedly violence in the Province. There are now two types of violence. Over the last two weeks there has been violence directed against the authority of the Westminster Government. A new type of violence which has been emerging over the last few weekends is purely sectarian: Catholics are being shot because they are Catholics. It may be that Protestants are being shot just because they are Protestants. Politics do not appear to enter into it.
It is no good people simply calling for peace and for the violence to stop. If calls for peace and condemnations of violence worked, Northern Ireland would be the most violence-free society in the world. From every quarter there are condemnations of violence and calls for peace. It does not appear to be worth while to keep doing that. It is much more important to ask: why does violence continue; why has violence continued on an ever-increasing scale over three years?
If this were a moral problem, it would be proper to condemn violence and to wish and to pray for peace. This is not essentially or intrinsically a moral problem. It is a political problem. A political problem must be handled in a political

fashion. The face of violence may change: it may intensify; it may lessen. The roots of violence remain the same. It does nobody much good to call names. There has been much name calling. Members of one section are called terrorists; they are inhuman animals; they are this, that and the other. Somebody else calls the other side other names. Every man who is prepared to risk his life or to lay it down is not likely to be deterred by being called a few names. We have assaying in Northern Ireland, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names may never harm me". I therefore say: stop the name calling.
It is poisoning the atmosphere and is unlikely to deter any man who is determined to follow the course he has adopted. I want to deal with the cause of the violence which has remained steady for the last 50 years. One of my hon. Friends said that we have wanted peace for 50 years and an hon. Member on the Government side spent most of his speech describing why the Border was not an issue and why the problem had nothing to do with the Border. I agree with that to the extent that it is nothing to do with a line on a map. A red line round the Six Counties does not cause the trouble, it is the system existing within the Six Counties which has been the cause of the violence.
At school my history teacher always taught me to look for the immediate causes and the remote causes of a situation. The immediate cause of the violence was the maladministration, the injustice, the discrimination, the institutionalised violence of the Stormont state. Stormont has evidently collapsed now, and according to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), has gone for ever. I agree with that point of view entirely.
The remote cause and the real cause of the violence rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister and the hundreds of Ministers who have preceded him. The domination by the British Government of a whole country followed by artificial partition and the domination of a certain section within that partition, has been the root cause of the trouble. Hon Members will say in all sincerity that this is not so. They will call for peace and advise the people


in Northern Ireland to get together and talk about their problem. That is very fine and very noble but, alas, it is unrealistic. The minority and the majority populations have been talking together for 50 years in the institution which used to be known as Stormont, and they did not get very far. So, if there is to be dialogue, it must be meaningful so that it will achieve something. The rules of the game must be changed. The problems of Ulster will be solved only by the people of the Six Counties, but the British Government have an important role to play. There are certain conditions which Britain can impose and unless the changes are made there is no point in sitting down to talk on the basis of what happened pre-1968.
There is no point in sitting down to talk unless the talks are likely to lead somewhere, because the end result will be that everyone will be even more frusstrated at the end. The British Government have a solemn duty to perform, therefore, if they will perform it. Everyone in Northern Ireland agrees that the Whitelaw initiative has not much of a chance, mainly because British Ministers, no matter how well-intentioned or how intelligent, will never solve Irish problems because they do not fully understand them. They cannot understand them. Northern Irish problems are understood by the Northern Irish people, but certain things must be done. Only the British Government, for instance, can release the internees. Only the British Government can grant amnesties, because only they have the power.
The British Government should not continued with the hand-to-mouth policy they have appeared to adopt over the past week or two. Next weekend bodes ill for us all, and we are all afraid of what might happen after next weekend. But it will not do, and it will not save anybody any headaches or heartaches, if the British Government look no further than next weekend, if the Ministers responsible occupy their minds all this week with how to avoid anything that might happen next weekend. They must make up their minds at some stage that there is a policy behind all this, that there is the future—not next weekend or the week after, which might be very bad. We hope it will not be.
The British Government should now do what they should have done originally, when the so-called initiative happened. Had the Secretary of State released all the internees on the first day he took office there would obviously have been discontent in the majority population, but by letting them out in batches he has each time given offence. If he is committed, as he says he is, to releasing them all eventually, why did he not do it at once and let the discontent all be contained in one expression, instead of stretching it out and adding fuel to the flames?
If the British Government are serious about solving the problem they will confront the basic issues. The State of Northern Ireland by its very nature, by its very existence, produced the conditions we have known for the past three years. Any attempt to continue within that system, any attempt made without a serious effort to change the system, will have no better results. People cannot be changed. It is not possible to teach an old dog new tricks, to persuade Brian Faulkner suddenly to become a fair-minded man and want to share power. Nor will Mr. Craig wish to share power with anybody. Why should they want to, when they have had all the power for themselves for 50 years? If I had had power for that long I am sure I should have been a bit reluctant to share it with anybody, too. It is quite a human failing. To say to people, "Forget your differences. We will start all over again with a system basically the same, and we will talk about it", is no good. It gets nobody anywhere.
I hope the British Government will produce the conditions whereby all the people involved in the situation in the North of Ireland can sit down and talk about their problems—and I mean all the people. I am talking about the men of violence, the so-called terrorists, the so-called inhuman animals. The man who attempts to set up a peace conference and deliberately excludes the people without whom peace cannot be possible does not really want peace; he is seeking some sort of political power for himself. Any peace conference that does not include the IRA on the one hand and whatever dominant militant group that will arise in the confusion in the majority, any conference that does not


take their point of view into account and at which they are not present, is not worth bothering with, because they will not be bound by any decisions reached in their absence.
The British Government should do the just thing and accede to the basic and reasonable demands of the minority. We are not looking for concessions. We are merely asking for basic, ordinary justice. To release the internees is not to concede us anything. It is merely to restore to freedom men who should never have lost freedom in the first place. To announce an amnesty for political prisoners is not to concede anything. It is to admit the wrong of the past.

Rev. Ian Paisley: While I go with the hon. Gentleman on the internment question, we are now dealing with an amnesty, and the prisoners he has in mind are people who have been tried in a court of law, found guilty by a jury of crimes against the State. These people now claim that they should be let off the crimes they have committed. Surely that is something that in the present situation no reasonable person could ask for. Those prisoners have been found guilty and put away by the ordinary processes of the law. Therefore, to ask that they be let out is to ask for a concession.

Mr. McManus: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I will come to that aspect later on the allocations of money to the judicial system. However, his remarks come a little odd from one who was himself the subject of an amnesty. He was released from prison under an amnesty and he did not then object and say, "No, no. Keep me in jail. I do not want your amnesty."
The basic and just demands of the minority are the demands of the entire minority, who are completely united on them because they are visibly just and basic. If these conditions are created, I believe that a meaningful reconciliation conference of all the people involved can take place and only then can progress be made. The conference might meet, might disagree on many basic issues, but at least it might agree to meet again and that in itself would be a step forward.
We say all this against a background of the danger of dealing with things to

come, and if I were a Protestant working man I would be confused; I would feel betrayed, most of all confused, by the things my leaders are saying. Some are telling the Protestant working man, "We will go it alone." Others are saying, "Official Unionism is the thing." Yet others are saying, "Full integration is the answer." They have all been proved wrong. The Protestant working people have been brought up to believe that Stormont is the guardian of their rights and privileges. But it was taken away from them hours after their leaders had been telling them that no such thing could happen. The confusion and frustration of the Protestant working class are being played upon by their so-called leaders, ably assisted on this side of the Channel by men who have recently interfered. Just as so many famous statesmen of the past have done, they are attempting to play once again the Orange card.
The Protestant working class, like ourselves, is, I believe, becoming more and more politically aware, because out of the intensive political agitation of the last three years at least one good thing has come—a new generation of politically aware people who will not be taken in by spurious leadership or by cant and slogans which have come to mean nothing. I hope they will see through the fallacies of their leaders, such as the fallacies of Mr. Craig, who says "We will defend your rights". In such people they have an enemy which is perhaps not yet distinguishable to them. They have been told "You have an enemy", but they have not been told who or what the enemy is. There is the British Army and there is the Catholic population. The choice is easy because evidently the British Army would offer more resistance than the Catholic minority. So, if the British Government are really serious about solving the problem in Northern Ireland that is the contribution they can make. They can create the conditions whereby a real conference can be arranged with some hope of reconciliation and of moving forward. That conference, I would suggest, should not be attended by them, for a change. They should leave it to the people there to sort out their own problems.
I turn to page 4 of the Appropriations and the police service. I say this about the police. I will not go into their long


and chequered and dishonourable record now. That has been chronicled well enough and often enough. I could never be convinced that any group of people are well qualified to investigate complaints about themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said earlier, "Ask my brother: 'Am I a liar?' "
We are led to believe that the RUC is a splendid body of men, that there is a feeling of comradeship and discipline in the force. If all these things are true then it is even more obvious that policemen are not well equipped to investigate complaints against policemen. The Police Committee was set up, maybe with the best of intentions, to take charge of police affairs under the Hunt proposals. Can the Minister tell me what significant thing the Committee has done? Has it been responsible for anything significant at all or has it just done as other bodies have done before and continued to take the dictation from the Ministry of Home Affairs? On countless occasions I have written to the Inspector-General of the RUC about legitimate complaints, for which I could not offer evidence. I wrote in good faith asking him to investigate the complaints. Weeks, sometimes months, later a reply would be received to the effect that I was telling a whole lot of lies and it would be far better if I did not write and take up his valuable time making these allegations.
I do not blame him for not conducting an impartial investigation against his own men because then he would be damaging the structure of the force. What I am asking is: will the Minister ensure, now that direct rule has come, that not only is justice done but that it is seen to be done? Will he institute as quickly as possible some impartial means by which complaints against the police can be investigated so that it will not be left to the police to investigate these matters?
The Secretary of State has had drawn to his attention the serious situation existing in Portadown. For this the police are certainly being blamed by the inhabitants. For those who do not know Portadown I would inform them that it is a largely Unionist town, but there is a pocket of Catholics living mainly in an area called

the Tunnel. They are almost naked. They are under attack from tartan gangs, the UDA or whatever. There is testimony of this in the signed statements made to the Secretary of State. The police have refused to do anything or, when a raid is going on, will simply come in and arrest and charge all the public who happen to live in the area. This was the subject of a Question. The Minister said that a number of minor matters had arisen and all had been dealt with. That sort of Answer is not very helpful. I know for a fact that serious things are happening nightly and dozens of people, maybe hundreds, have been simply intimidated out of their houses. The popular rumour in Portadown is that there are certain areas of that town that simply have to be wiped out. It is the intention that before 12th July these areas of resistance will be eliminated so that the big parade can go through unaffected. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, can assure me that something will be done about that.
On the question of the courts I would say this much, and in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. Much is made of law and order; the most famous slogan of the Tory Government is law and order. Law and order, surely, in essence depend upon respect for the law. Unless people respect the law they are not likely to obey it. Whether hon. Members opposite like it or not, the situation is that the minority have simply lost respect for the courts of Northern Ireland, and for very good reason. There is a long, long history of biased judgments, of biased prosecutions, and of long sentences.
Even recently, last year, a well-known lady in Belfast got six months for appear-ink outside the court and wearing a combat jacket. It was a matter of protest even by the lawyers. I am not suggesting that gentlemen who have appeared in combat jackets every weekend should be sent to gaol; I would not like to see anybody sent to gaol. However, the minority community draws aparallel. They see Mrs. McGuigan getting six months while they see on the television thousands of people fraternising with the police and soldiers and not a word said about it. These are the sorts of things which undermine the confidence of the minority in the judicial system in the North.
I ask the Minister what guarantees he has to give us that these sorts of things will not continue in future. I am not suggesting that he sacks the entire judiciary—no, but I am asking him at least to say to this House that no longer will judicial appointments be made on a party basis, no longer will appointments to the bench be rewards for good service to the party, no longer ever will the situation arise where a former Minister of Home Affairs appoints himself Recorder of Belfast. The present Recorder of Belfast, Mr. George Topping, appointed himself Recorder of Belfast. He was Attorney-General at the time.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the hon. Gentleman make clear to the House that it is an impossibility for a Minister of Home Affairs to appoint himself to judicial office and that it was his successor who appointed him—not he himself?

Mr. McManus: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member, but I have seen a copy of the law Gazette and at the top and bottom of the announcement appears the name of Mr. Topping, and what strikes me as important are such words as, "There is a vacancy for the Recordership of Belfast; Mr. Topping has been appointed, and I am pleased to sanction the appointment." And it is signed by Mr. Topping. It is a remarkable fact, and it can be checked any day of the week. That is the sort of damnable thing which is bound to sap confidence.
That brings me to the question of political prisoners. Strangely enough, while this House will recognise political prisoners in any part of the world, it will not recognise them in what is called part of its own country. I have myself seen Motions in the House pressing for the release of political prisoners in Brazil and other South American countries, and the House talks of political prisoners in Greece and Portugal. But not in Britain. Oh, no. In Britain people are put in prison through due process of law and they are not political prisoners. What is an internee? He is a political prisoner, because he was involved in activities against the State, for which he could not be charged, but they are inside because they engaged in activities against the State. So to say that in Britain there

is no category of political prisoner is simply nonsense.
Twenty-eight days ago Billy McKee and five other men went on hunger strike. The best medical evidence is that after 30 days of hunger strike a man's condition will probably never be the same again, and after 40 days there is little hope for him. I repeat the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and which I have asked before in the House—is the Secretary of State prepared to allow Billy McKee and 20, 30 or 40 others to die by hunger strike?
We have heard a lot about the right of protest, and England prides itself on the right of non-violent protest. Billy McKee and the other men and women on hunger strike are making the most non-violent protest it is possible to make. A non-violent protest does not just avoid obvious manifestations of violence; it is an active protest; and the highest form of non-violent protest is the hunger strike. That is all that is left to do. "The only protest they can make is to abstain from food even unto death to get across their point of view, and that is a responsible and noble action. Will the Minister say whether or not he is prepared to let these men die?

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman states that persons convicted of IRA crimes such as murder are political prisoners and that the British do not treat them as political prisoners. Furthermore, he suggests that the British system is forcing people to continue on hunger strike. Does he not agree with me that in the 26 counties of which he is so fond there are IRA men who have been convicted and imprisoned and men who are on hunger strike, and that the Dublin Government do not treat them as leniently and as decently as the British Government treat prisoners in Ulster?

Mr. McManus: The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asks whether I agree with him. It is most unlikely that I would ever agree with anything he says. He is wrong in saying that I have a great love for Dublin. If he has read the newspapers recently he will know that I am not at all fond of it. His is a poor argument, because two wrongs have never made a right.
Under Class IV there is an item for employment, training, rehabilitation and resettlement services. In Enniskillen several well-intentioned people on a non-sectarian all-denominational committee are making strenuous voluntary effects to establish a rehabilitation centre for retarded persons. Is the Minister prepared to assist that effort in every way possible?
I dislike continuing to use the word "discrimination", but in Enniskillen, which is one of the two major towns in my constituency, there is a technical college at which 70 per cent. of the pupil population is anti-Unionist or Catholic, yet not a single teaching post is held by a Catholic. That is discrimination if ever I saw it.
We are often lectured by Englishmen and told that the Irish have a long memory, that they never forget their past, and they are too fond of their history. In fact, we get the wrong view of history. The history is taught in the home, not where it should be taught, in the schools, by people qualified and trained to teach it. When I was a teacher teaching history, I had the utmost difficulty in getting books on Irish history. The local education authority simply would not sanction the sort of books which I wanted.

Rev. Ian Paisley: And no wonder.

Mr. McManus: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. It was my intention—I had gone a good deal of the way in fighting the local education authority—to build up a library on every conceivable aspect of history. I believe that if every school in the North, whether State or religious school, were supplied with a proper selection of the many excellent textbooks which are becoming available, part of our problem might be solved at an early stage, and people would, perhaps, gain a balanced view for once of their history. As things are, Protestants come out of Protestant schools regarding King William as some sort of saint, and Catholics come out of Catholic schools regarding him as some kind of devil. Not that it matters two hoots in the first place whether he was saint or devil; he is so long gone that it ought to be irrelevant.
Now, the question of drainage. Here, I make a plea on behalf of my constituency. The Minister may not know that

my constituency embraces Lough Erne. The land is low-lying, and drainage is greatly needed there, more than in any other part of the country. A certain amount of drainage work has been carried out, and a great deal more has still to be done. Will the Minister look urgently into the problem and see whether the drainage schemes already under way can be expedited?
Next, inland navigation. I remind the Minister of the scheme proposed—again, proposed on a voluntary basis—to link the Erne waterway with the Shannon waterway, thus giving Ireland the finest inland waterway system in these islands, and perhaps even in Europe. It would be a tremendous tourist amenity. There is nothing sectarian in that. Certain people in the South are attempting to open an old canal or waterway. It is a costly business, and I am sure that this Government, who seem to have so much money, could devote at least some of it to that scheme.
As regards employment, I welcome any effort which can be made to improve prospects. I only ask that clear evidence be given at all stages that the practices which prevailed in the past will no longer be followed, and that the discrimination which is so infamous in, for example, Harland and Wolff will not be continued. The argument has been put about by the former Prime Minister that the hinterland or immediate area surrounding Harland and Wolff has always been staunchly Protestant and that there is a strong tradition of Protestantism there. That may be an argument, but it does not stand up. The firm of Mackie in the Springfield Road has always had a hinterland strongly and traditionally Catholic and Republican, yet there are a mere handful of Catholics in that factory.
Now, the Commissioner for Complaints. As a responsible journalist wrote in a recent book called, "How Stormont Fell", the idea of the Commissioner for Complaints, like the Community Relations Commission, was well intentioned but ended up as a gimmick. Hon. Members opposite have made much play of the fact that the Commissioner for Complaints was not able to put a conclusive report on discrimination before Stormont. The reason is simply that when appointed he was put in a strait-jacket and had no real


powers. Would the Minister look again at this situation? Is a Commissioner for Complaints necessary and, if so, can he be given some meaningful powers so that he can investigate a complaint when it is made?
There is an item in Class II which refers to
additional allowances, gratuities, compassionate allowances…
I do not pretend to know what that means, but it should surely cover the point I am about to make. To my knowledge no compensation has yet been paid to the internees who have been released from the concentration camps. I believe that there is an absolute case for compensation. If a man against whom no charges are laid is taken away for nine months and is then released, he has been deprived for nine months from his family, his work and his environment. The least the Government can do is to offer him some compensation. May we be told what arrangements exist for compensating internees?
Finally, I wish to refer to the rent and rates strike and the civil disobedience campaign. The day before yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of being called to a public house. Its owner had discovered that a gentleman from Belfast had arrived, complete with a furniture van, to seize his property—in other words, goods to the value of his rates. In the end the man went away, no doubt disappointed, but empty-handed. If the Government wish to pursue that sort of policy and are insensitive enough to send out men from Belfast to seize property to the amount of rates owing, then I believe that the final cost will far outweigh the amount of money they would take in and that the effect on the community will be traumatic.
There are still in Ireland people who are old enough to remember being thrown out of their houses when their property was seized in lieu of rent. Those memories still remain. If the present Government seek out people and send men to seize property, I shall not give much for the success of any initiative, and I would not give much hope for the building up of any sort of credibility with the minority. If the Minister is able to say that this is not the policy

of the Secretary of State and that this sort of thing will not be indulged in, I believe that that would show a greater sense of priorities and would be a step in the right direction.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On previous occasions Northern Ireland Members have been regarded as prophets of doom. We are probably just as unpopular tonight when we assume a rather different rôle and report on the facts as they are and not as we would like them to be.
Three months ago we as the elected representatives tried to point to the dangers involved in the course on which the Government had embarked and on which we thought we might be able to throw some light. However, it must be said that scant attention was paid to our views and many claimed to know better than we did. Up until about a week ago we were all prepared to hope against hope that the initiative would succeed, but tonight in Northern Ireland nobody anywhere can bring himself to hope.
Look, for example, at what happened last night in the Ardoyne Old Park area. At the end of March, when the initiative was taken, the controlling battalion of the Provisional IRA had been almost decimated by the security forces. Last night it was operating at full strength. I make no wild allegations about the reason for that. It might be rather too much of a coincidence that it has followed on the release of internees.
On the other side, on the Protestant side, there has been a most significant development. Thousands of young men, taught by Westminster that violence does pay and that force has replaced the ballot box, have organised themselves into a para-military organisation with its own anonymous command structure and completely devoid of political leadership and responsible to no political leadership. In their view the Parliament at Westminster has rewarded past restraint with treachery and they have drawn their own conclusions. In the past few weekends they have shown their strength and. what is more important, they have felt their strength.
I listened with some astonishment to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of


State appealing to the elected representatives in Northern Ireland to urge restraint on their followers. Does he not realise that the setting aside of parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland has completely destroyed the influence of the elected representatives? Does he not realise that power has passed out of their hands or, perhaps more correctly, has been taken out of our hands?
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) struck the most realistic note when he said that it was difficult for people in Northern Ireland to believe anyone any longer. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) I should willingly join in any campaign to advocate restraint, but the difficulty is who would listen to us?
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) made the point that the constitution of Northern Ireland was safe because it depended on the expressed wish of the majority, but what has happened to the expressed wish of the majority in recent months? Can the idea that the majority must give its verdict before a change can be made be sustained any longer? What advice can we give from this place to people who are now taking to the streets? As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North(Mr. Stratton Mills) said on the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill in March, the so-called initiative has swept away completely the middle ground in Ulster politics, and if we preach restraint will we be heeded by those who believe that past restraint has been a factor in their undoing? Will any words from any quarter allay the fears of those who see themselves being betrayed to no purpose, for bitter experience has caused them to disbelieve even the most solemn guarantee and assurance?
I shall have to skim over some important matters contained in this order, because Northern Ireland Members have extraordinary difficulty in competing for time in a way that Scottish and Welsh Members do not. It leads me to suggest that in future Ulster Members, and particularly Ulster Unionist Members, might participate a little more fully in Scottish and Welsh debates.
The House will have noticed that the hon. Member who represents Newton Abbey at Stormont has indicated his

intention to resign his seat. May 1, as the Westminster Member representing the whole area, suggest that the Secretary of State should use the power conferred on him and issue a writ in order to have that vacancy filled? This is a developing area, and the lack of a Member to look after local interests will be felt very much.
Under the heading of the police, would my hon. Friend consider this crazy order that drivers of all vehicles should in future carry their tax books in the vehicles? There could be no more certain recipe for disaster. Anyone who hi-jacked a vehicle could produce the book to prove that he was the legal owner. This will add to the black market in vehicles going across the Border and coming back in a slightly different form to be sold at a profit for the IRA.
On Class 8, Vote 5, would the Minister consider a question which has been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State? This is the question of the by-pass road leading to Aldergrove Airport. Only last week, a child of 10 was killed on this new by-pass. There must have been some negligence in planning that did not provide for a crossing.
Under public building and works, we get the impression that there will be some unused funds as a result of Stormont's prorogation. Could some of these funds be allocated to the BBC to provide the long-promised television transmitter to serve the White well area of Newton Abbey? This has not been given a particularly high priority.
Would my hon. Friend proceed urgently with the publication of maps of the new boundaries? The political parties in Northern Ireland are already working under a great handicap because democracy seems to have been set aside. If we delay these arrangements until the very eve of the new council elections, we will put them in an impossible position.
Under hospital services, there are special problems for the special care service for handicapped children. There is a need for expansion to provide additional accommodation, particularly in hostels. I know that the Minister of State has been looking at this problem. Would both Ministers see that there is no fragmentation of the special care service, and that we retain the unified structure which has so benefited these unfortunate people?
Passing from these bread and butter matters, I feel that many will regard our words tonight as absolutely irrelevant. We have been made impotent and we have not the power to stop the avalanche. The Government have the power but seem to be very reluctant to use it. People at home have the impression that the Government have blundered into this disaster. No one in the House will share that view. We should not imagine that any British Government, whatever their complexion, would embark upon such a hideous gamble without having some alternative policy waiting.
Tonight, with perhaps only five or six days left before the crisis is upon us, I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends, and even the Prime Minister himself, to take the House into their confidence and explain what this new policy is to be.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Mr. Howell.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat in the Chamber since the start of the debate, and since exactly 7 p.m. I have tried to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker on every occasion, except when having a cup of tea or coffee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order, nor, indeed, an unusual occurrence.

Mr. Kilfedder: Further to that point of order. I spoke earlier in the main debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I also wish to speak on the Appropriation Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Kilfedder: Mr. Kilfedder rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my point will be in order. Is it in order for hon. Members who are not particularly interested in the matters before the House to take precedence over hon. Members from Northern Ireland who are at present working under great difficulty on matters relevant to their constituencies?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House has great sympathy with the points of view expressed, but they are not points of order. Mr. Howell.

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that a very serious difficulty arises in having a wide-ranging debate in which many hon. Members wish to take part. There have been several speeches—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mills: I have not finished the point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So far the point is not a point of order.

Mr. Mills: If I could complete my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might help. Would it be possible to have some form of informal time limit on speeches in future debates?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr. Howell.

2.16 a.m.

Mr. David Howell: There is little enough time left for answering the enormous number of issues and points raised in the debate. I appreciate the feelings of hon. Members who have not been called to speak. This is usually the way in our debates. Usually there are many who still wish to speak when there is no time available.
On this occasion we have covered an enormous amount of ground and have had a very long run on Northern Ireland affairs. I congratulate hon. Members who are still present with me at the finish of the debate so that we may go over some of the points raised.
Many of the points touched on raise much wider issues than anything to do with economics. There are wide issues of security and military operations. A general case can be made that, broadly, they come under expenditure headings of one kind or another and are relative to the overall economic situation, and that is true.
We have had a very full debate on the broader issues of the security situation, the civil disturbances and the violence. In the last 10 minutes, I shall try to


concentrate on the economic and industrial issues raised. I shall not succeed in covering them all because I am left no time to do so.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some of us deliberately waited for the Appropriation Order to raise nitty-gritty points and points of detail and, therefore, we were hoping to receive answers. If we are not to get answers to the general points raised, perhaps the Minister will look at them and write to us about them.

Mr. Howell: Most certainly. I fully accept that. The only restraint upon me is the physical one of time. Every point made will be looked at most carefully and examined in detail. I appreciate the point that this was the opportunity to raise small points arising out of the order.
I start with a small point but a very important one, as many of these small points are. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) raised at the beginning of the evening the question of the control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its relationship with my right hon. Friend. The precise position is that the Police Act (Northern Ireland), 1970, established a police authority for Northern Ireland. That Act placed on the police authority the duty of securing the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force. In effect, it made the Royal Ulster Constabulary independent of ministerial control, although the Minister for Home Affairs still retains some function in relation to police matters. For instance, the Minister may appoint inspectors of constabulary. My right hon. Friend has vested in him the powers of the Minister of Home Affairs, so that is the position vis-à-vis the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
At the beginning of the debate the hon. Member for Leeds, South raised a number of other detailed points. He was kind enough to suggest that it may not be possible to answer them all in detail. One matter that he raised, which I regard as important and which he does, is economic co-operation between the north and south. I answered a question in the House of Commons the other day when I mentioned that discussions on co-operation had gone on last year under the previous Stormont Government covering a wide range of issues such as

tourism, energy, reclamation schemes for lochs and regional development plans of various kinds. That is an important area which should and must be developed further. It is a matter we are looking at.
As the hon. Member rightly said, we will have opportunities to discuss tax changes further under the finance Order in Council. Relations with the Treasury in London are as before. The Ministry of Finance remains as it was under the previous Government. As I said in my opening speech, my right hon. Friends are reviewing the adequacy of the arrangements for financing Northern Ireland. This is a slightly different issue. The arrangements which exist between the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury exist still and are broadly the same.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) then spoke. He follows these matters closely and has great experience in them. He talked about estate duties and said he had a hazy recollection that there was some difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I thought he was wrong at first, but he is right in the sense that gifts before death become liable for estate duty in Northern Ireland if made within four years of death, compared with seven years in the rest of the United Kingdom. In that sense there is a difference, but otherwise the levels of estate duty are the same throughout the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member talked about loans being repaid and the question of borrowing. Loans raised by the Northern Ireland Exchequer are part of the overall borrowing policy of the United Kingdom Government. Repayments would be part of the overall borrowing policy of the Government. There would not be a specific and separate operation.
Hon. Members talked about subsidies to Northern Ireland and quantifying the amount of money. The White Paper goes as far as it is possible to go, and for a good reason. It describes the moneys which go to Northern Ireland both as part of the overall deal, of parity of taxation and share of revenue, and the additional sums which go under various heads. Over and above that there are all sorts of revenues and expenditures which are United Kingdom-wide and for


which a separate calculation for Northern Ireland no more exists than for any other slice of the United Kingdom.
That is why there is always some complication in making hard and fast assertions about what goes and does not go to Northern Ireland. The figures that can be given relate to the powers that were transferred and to the separate operations of the Northern Ireland Exchequer. They do not cover all the economic activities of Northern Ireland, many of which are incorporated and part of the economic activities of the whole of the United Kingdom.
I must say a word on "Terror and Tears". There is no confusion on this matter. The pamphlet is available and obtainable in large quantities. I was asked why the Government do not distribute the pamphlet. This is simply because Her Majesty's Government take the view that the message of the terror and atrocities that have continued in Northern Ireland is got over in a number of effective ways and is widely distributed throughout the world Press. My right hon. Friend believes that is the best way to get over the message. If others wish to call for copies of "Terror and Tears". they may do so. They are available in large numbers.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to internment. I have not time to go into that matter in detail. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the collection of debts. This matter was mentioned earlier, and I said that my right hon. Friend would listen to Professor Townsend's views on it. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who touched on the whole question of the rent and rates strike that, whatever their views may be, they must accept that a whole community must pay for a whole community's services.
Whenever I hear hon. Members taking an intransigent view about that matter, first, I do not believe that they represent the views of everybody and, secondly, if their view is one of total intransigence, it is another aspect of the tragic one-sided-ness which seems to have bedevilled the politics of Ulster in the past, and they must accept that is my view. We must take a less than totally intransigent view.

I believe that is the view that more and more people in Northern Ireland have come to recognise and accept.
Harland and Wolff was touched on by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). A number of points were made about the Government's holding and how it will be affected by the new arrangements, part of which have been announced. This matter is still under discussion. We cannot make an assessment until a final assessment has been made of exactly how much help will go into the new Harland and Wolff expansion scheme.
The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), who unfortunately cannot be with us at this time, made an excellent point on discrimination in employment. I was grateful for his remarks. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that while this is not a matter which can be solved overnight—the hon. Member for Attercliffe made the same sound point—training schemes for the future and the disposition of the management are heavily set in the direction of a more balanced work force. I believe this is the intention of everyone.
When I hear the remarks made by some people dismissing the help to Harland and Wolff, whose prospects are excellent, as entirely one-sided and not helping this or that community, I feel that they ought to know better. The help will be widespread throughout the Belfast area, and there will be considerable secondary effects in a number of areas. This is of assistance to the Ulster community. Those who believe in the future of that community should welcome this assistance and perhaps do a little less griping.
Many other points were made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) said that the Estimates were a little out of date, and so on. In the circumstances they are bound to be out of date, because we are dealing with Estimates which were formulated and drawn up towards the end of last year and the first part of this year and the Appropriation Order is to legalise the Vote on Account to authorise those Estimates. The further Supplementary Estimates arising


from the actions and adjustments which my right hon. Friend has proposed, is proposing, and will propose will follow. However, we are dealing with matters which existed and had to be dealt with as of the day that the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill became an Act.
My hon. Friend also mentioned compensation and many other matters, but there is not time to answer them at the moment. Has compensation been speeded up? Yes, it has. Will more money be required? Certainly it will. Will that involve Supplementary Estimates? Almost certainly. Compensation payments come out of the Ministry of Home Affairs Vote. Those which have been or are liable to be paid in this year are, as far as can be forecast, to some extent covered in the estimates, but more money will undoubtedly be required.
There have been some big needs for compensation. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire mentioned the Co-operative Society disaster. That involved and will probably involve more big payments. We are doing all we can to help, and we shall be ready to do more.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) mentioned the capital purposes fund. I said I would look into that matter and talk about it at the end of the evening when I wound up the debate. My right hon. Friend's point was: is this not another form of borrowing? He is quite right. If funds are withdrawn, as is proposed, from the capital purposes fund, the existing purposes for which the fund is used—namely, to lend to local and public authorities—will have to be met in other ways, and this necessitates further borrowing. My hon. Friend was right that this method eventually leads to more borrowing.
My time is running out. Many more interesting matters have been raised. My right hon. Friend and I will consider them. Many more questions have been asked. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) touched on the Loch Erne drainage scheme. We can help with this. The hon. Gentleman talked about various other issues which there is not time to deal with. The hour is late. The debate has come to an end—

It being half-past Two o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 671), a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Jopling.]

GREEN BELT LAND (MOTORWAY SERVICE AREAS)

2.31 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Even at this late hour I am most grateful for the opportunity of drawing attention to a matter of deep concern to my constituents of the Chigwell Urban District and which also touches the amenity of other parts of the country.
Chigwell was described by Charles Dickens as the greatest place on earth. Much of its beauty and that of my constituency has survived the outward growth of London because of the tenacious defence, both by local interests and by the City Corporation, of Epping Forest and because local authorities, local people, and central Government have maintained the metropolitan green belt.
I have a cottage at Curtis Mill Green in the Parish of Navestock, only about 15 miles from London. It is surrounded by agricultural land and woodland. Our next door neighbour, a retired farm worker, has very sensibly never been to London. For this state of affairs we have the green belt to thank.
It is not surprising that most of us wished the London-Cambridge motorway—M11—to be built through the Lea Valley and not, as was decided, through the Roding Valley. When Site 4 was chosen for a service area, local indigation was aroused; for, although Site 4 occupied part of the former Royal Air Force installation, it was on green belt land close to Chigwell Village, close to the excellent Buckhurst Hill County High School, with its fine playing fields,


and to the Grange Farm camping and recreation centre which will soon, I hope, be receiving Catholic and Protestant children for a holiday and respite from Ulster horror, the subject of our earlier debate.
I obtained a local inquiry. This was non-statutory and was the very first of its kind. Many in Chigwell were disappointed that the inspector accepted a site south of the Loughton interchange in preference to one to the north. The inspector concluded that a service area at Site 4 would not so affect amenities as to justify consideration of another site. Both the inspector and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who upheld him, were following the policy of placing service areas at intervals of about 12½ miles and to have the first developed site at the conurbation end of the motorway in question.
This policy has not always been precisely observed and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and others hold strong views about it. I share their scepticism.
The local authority and I were deeply dissatisfied with the conduct of the inquiry. The Chigwell Council filed objection to the compulsory purchase order on Site 4 as landowner of part of it. We were nevertheless most grateful when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who was not bound to do this, received a deputation I brought to him, consisting of Councillor Ian Beattie, a former chairman of the council and now Chairman of the Town Planning Committee, together with the clerk, the engineer, and the surveyor.
We voiced our complaints not just at the outcome but at the manner of the inspector's handling of the local inquiry. That, however, is water down the Roding. What was most welcome was the sympathetic and understanding attitude of my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, who had only just taken up his position, and the firm assurances that extensive engineering and landscaping would be undertaken to preserve the very precious amenities.
I should like to know how many service areas there are in green belt land in this country. In our case the development of the service area will leave a narrow wedge of green belt, and this must be preserved.
We have three other main anxieties. Ancillary development such as hotels and shopping precincts might be permitted, thus adding to the encroachment made by the service area upon the green belt. Second, the development of a service area on grounds of over-riding national policy might be regarded by private developers as a precedent elsewhere in the green belt. Our third concern is for the effect of any redevelopment by private enterprise on future schemes for creating what are called "green lungs" on the outskirts of the metropolis, such as the proposed Roding Valley redevelopment. I ask the Minister to make a public reassurance on these three points.
We are gratified that his Department is making the unusual provision of a vehicle bridge to meet the objection to the use of side roads for access to the service area. The Department of the Environment has proposed a close-boarded fence 2 metres high, and extensive planting to screen Buckhurst Hill school. In response to assurances we have already received officially from the Department, the Chigwell Council withdrew its objection to the compulsory purchase order and representatives of the council met officials of the Department recently to discuss landscaping and additional conservation measures.
Councillor Beattie, I read in the local Press, has spoken of a
victory for the public at large".
Many did not want the motorway. Few wanted the service area. Doubtless they wanted them somewhere else, but not near us. The Department builds highways but it is also the Department for the Environment. I believe it will be a victory for the Department and the country if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will state the assurances we have sought.

2.38 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for raising this extremely important point, important both to his constituents in the particular case he described, and important for general application throughout the country.
It might be helpful if I remind hon. Members of the policy and procedure


respecting the provision of motorways and service areas which are an essential facility for motorway travellers. The line of a motorway is established only after the procedures in the Highways Acts 1959–71 have been carried out. Because they are cross-country through routes which endeavour to follow the most direct route, whilst avoiding urban areas, it is probably inevitable that some of them will pass through the green belt. Once the line is fixed sites for service areas are selected at intervals of about 25 miles with provision for the possible development of intermediate sites if necessary. If motorways pass through the green belt it follows that service areas also may have to be located in the green belt.
In consultation with the Department's engineers and with the independent Advisory Committee on the Landscape Treatment of Trunk Roads, likely sites are examined on each stretch of motorway on which a service area should be located. Once a preferred site is identified, the local planning authority is consulted under the procedure described in the Department's circular 80/1971. This may culminate in a local non-statutory inquiry.
Initially only alternate sites are developed, thereby providing facilities at intervals of about 25 miles. The infill sites are developed later, when increases in traffic make it necessary to provide more facilities. There is no hard and fast rule about having a motorway service area every 12½ miles. The distances between the sites are not inflexible. When there are sound amenity, geographical, traffic or engineering reasons suggesting variation, this is done within reasonable limits.
Consultation with the planning authority does not cease with the outline approval of the site to be developed. The Department invites tenders in open competition for the commercial development of the site, and tender offers must be in two parts—a financial offer and a layout and building design. The views of the planning authority on the way in which the development is to be carried out are very important, because the successful tenderer for the service area will have to obtain detailed planning approval for his buildings in the normal way as if the development were a private one. The Department, before making its final

choice of the successful tender, asks the planning authority for its views on the design submitted, and these views are taken into account. In addition, a successful tenderer has to submit his scheme for approval to the Royal Fine Art Commission.
I know the fears expressed about the construction of motorway service areas in green belts. This is not an entirely new problem. Of the 25 service areas in operation, 10 are located in green belt, and a further three under construction are also in green belt. Two of the green belt sites are in the London Metropolitan green belt. The existing sites in green belts, beginning with those on the M1, are Scratchwood, in the London Borough of Barnet; Toddington, in Bedfordshire; the Watford Gap, in Northampton shire; Trowell, in Nottinghamshire; and Woolley Edge, in the West Riding. On the M4 there is Heston, in the London Borough of Hounslow. On the M5 there is Frankley, in Worcestershire; and on the M6 there is Corley, in Warwickshire, in my own constituency. Also on the M6 there are Keele, in Staffordshire, and Knutsford, in Cheshire. Under construction we have three sites in green belts—Gordano, in Somerset, on the M5; Birch, in Lancashire, on the M62, and Hartshead Moor, in the West Riding, also on the M62.
Some of the concern about service areas may arise because most people are better acquainted with the older service areas rather than the new ones. We have learned a great deal since the first were developed 12–13 years ago, and those now being built are much more attractive in their layout, landscaping and the general design of buildings, principally because more land has been taken. They are not nearly so cramped, and design standards have improved. Earlier service areas took about 10 acres, and those of us who use the M1know how cramped and crowded they are. Modern service areas serving the same sort of traffic take about 30 acres. Therefore, much higher standards of design are possible.
Where service areas are in a green belt we are very sensitive to the standards of design, and particular care is taken to ensure that the landscaping is carried out in such a way that the buildings—in fact, the whole development—fit satisfactorily into the surrounding countryside.
I can well appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the proposed service area at Chigwell, on the M11, within the Metropolitan green belt. I appreciate his comments about the deputation that came to see me a few weeks ago and the very useful discussions we had. I have given assurances to the urban district council that all practical steps will be taken to reduce the impact of the service area on the local environment. One side will in any case be in a deep cutting, and on the other I have agreed to construct an artificial embankment. In addition, tree planting and landscaping works will be undertaken, and the lighting will be designed with the amenities of the surrounding area very much in mind. Officers of my Department had a preliminary meeting with those of the Chigwell Urban District Council on 2nd June to discuss my proposals for the development of the service area and the implementation of the undertakings I gave to the Council. I was pleased to hear that they were successful and that broad agreement has been reached on the landscaping proposal.
I pay tribute to the constructive approach of my hon. Friend and of his urban district council. They have rightly been well representing their electors and local citizens in their dealings with the Department. They have, as I have said, taken a constructive approach to see that this development has the least impact on the surroundings and gives the best possible situation for the local citizens.
Although I fully understand the concern about possible effects of building service areas in green belt, I suggest that this is no reason for weakening our resolve to protect green belt anywhere

against other forms of development. Although the Secretary of State has always made clear that he intends to maintain and even approve more green belts, he accepts that the provision of motorways serving the major conurbations may mean some sacrifice of green belt land. He also accepts that adequate service facilities must be provided in the interests of both the safety and the comfort of motorway users.
Since experience shows that the greatest need for these facilities is at the conurbation end of a motorway, the most appropriate site for the first service area on a motorway which passes through the green belt may well be in the green belt, and the provision of a service area in green belt is regarded as a special case because it is justified in the national interest. In view of the concern shown by hon. Members, local authorities and the general public, let me make it clear that it is not a precedent for other forms of development in the area which are incompatible with green belt policies.
I hope that this clear statement of our view of service areas will reassure my hon. Friend and all those others who have been worried that motorways or service areas mean the death knell of the green belt. I thank him for raising this important subject and giving me a chance to comment both on his constituency problem, which he has energetically represented to the Department, and on the more general problem, where I hope these views will be of interest to local authorities and local residents throughout the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Three o'clock a.m.